The spot-fixing scandal has broken my heart. I’m a die-hard Pakistan cricket fan. Yes, I’d long heard about the corruption in our team, including by some of our greatest players in the 1990s. But I never wanted to believe it.
So when I saw the no-ball video evidence last month, it shook me. I was disgusted by our players, and even more so by the Pakistan Cricket Board. Whether or not anyone is convicted of a crime, if the video wasn’t a fake (and there’s no reason to think it was), then it and the horrifying behaviour of our officials in response are all I need to be convinced that our national cricket administration is rotten to the core.
In recent times Pakistan cricket has seen increasingly overt displays of religiosity. We’ve had conversions, sudden changes in appearance (with beards sprouting on many a formerly clean-shaven chin). We’ve had group prayers led by captains and (if rumours are to be believed) secret, sacred oaths sworn to unseat captains. We’ve had after-match press conferences prefaced by invocations of the divine.
Why, then, are we confronted with endemic cheating by our players and the unsavoury sight of our administrators seemingly scrambling to hide what has been going on? Why is our cricket infrastructure in as sorry a state as our political infrastructure?
For me, a large part of the answer has to do with the politicisation of religion.
I have always been a strong believer in Pakistan’s potential. And despite the terribly difficult times our country is going through, I’ve never accepted that our future needs to be bleak. But it is clear to me that Pakistan is being bled by a terrible enemy. That enemy is not America or India or any other external power. No, our enemy is within. Our enemy is our own hypocrisy.
To an extraordinary degree, we Pakistanis have a culture of hypocrisy. We condemn corrupt officials but cheat on our taxes. We have little evidence for conspiracy theories but spout them anyway. Our police take bribes. Our champion sportsmen throw matches. Our state both fights militants and supports militants. Our People’s Parties steal from the people. Our Muslim Leagues wink at those who kill Muslims.
Our hypocrisy is so rampant that one would think it’s a state-sponsored ideology.
And, in fact, it is. In moving from the secular state envisioned by Jinnah to the so-called religious one brought into being by Bhutto, Zia, the Sharifs and the Bhutto-Zardari dynasty, Pakistan has created a political template that makes hypocrisy essential.
Religion, like love, is at its core about sincerity. Saying you love your spouse or your child in public as loudly as possible does not make it true. But imagine a state where everyone was encouraged, indeed coerced, to do this. By law, no one would go to work on their child’s birthday. Wedding anniversaries would be marked with televised speeches. In order to be issued with passports, childless couples and the unmarried would be forced to fill out special declarations to the effect that their status was not of their choosing.
What would happen? People would lie. In order to be accepted and get ahead, they would say one thing and believe something else. And by so doing, they would devalue truth (and indeed love) in their society. They would create an environment of hypocrisy in which those who love and those who don’t love both claim to love, where those who don’t love would be denied the chance for honest self-assessment, and where those who do love would find the words they use to express their feelings drained of meaning through rampant misappropriation. The result would be a society utterly toxic to love and to its own people.
The same is true of religion. A state that mandates religious practices, as Pakistan does, is a state that mandates hypocrisy, because the law can only govern outward behaviour. It can say that such-and-such behaviour is prohibited, but it cannot say that such-and-such belief is prohibited. And as the gap between belief and behaviour widens, hypocrisy sets in. People with beards still kill. People who cover their heads still steal. People who thank God for their victories still cheat. And because so many people do these things, the split between religion and morality becomes profound and widely accepted.
Secularism need not be anti-religious. A secular Pakistan could be a Pakistan in which the religious life of its citizens is enhanced, just as love is enhanced in a state that does not seek to legislate love. We need to re-evaluate the notion of politicised Islam that has worked its way into our politics, our constitution, our culture and our sports teams.
There is no hiding from our hypocrisy. We have to confront it. It lies at the heart of our state. The choice between an Islamic republic and a republic with a Muslim majority is ours, and it is not merely a matter of words. There is a reason why religions say there should be no compulsion in matters of religion. The reason is that compulsion leads to hypocrisy.
And hypocrisy leads to the crises Pakistan faces today.
By Mohsin Hamid (Friday, 10 Sep, 2010 - Dawn.com)
Friday, September 10, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
INDIAN MUSLIMS - Under Siege? (by R. Upadhyay)
INDIAN MUSLIMS -Under Siege?
by R. Upadhyay
The history of Indian Muslims is so complex that their isolation from the national mainstream and consequent socio-psychological confusion have remained a puzzle for social scientists. A study based on the factual developments related to this distinct and a unique religio-social group may help the reader to draw right conclusions.
With the collapse of Moghul Empire, the Muslim bourgeoisie, who prefer to call themselves Muslim Indians and not Indian Muslims have been struggling to keep the Indian Muslims under a mental blockade by using Islam as weapon. They treat their community members as a communal constituency to bargain with the contemporary ruling class to share political power. Assertive insistence of Islamic clerics on a separate Muslim identity in a diverse but united society worked as a catalyst to accelerate the movement for Muslim separatism launched in this country for centuries.
Since the advent of Muslim rule in India, Indian Muslims have been suffering from the malady of hate and divisive politics of the ruling class. Initially, they became the victims of Muslim Indians who had converted them for their self-seeking interest and subsequently of the political class in their politics of vote arithmetic. Ironically, they have never realised that they have been under siege under Muslim Indians, who continue to carry forward the legacy of Sarhindi to Iqbal.
Muslim invaders had massacred unaccountable number of native population and destroyed large number of temples in the name of Islam. They converted large number of Indians into Islam and kept them segregated from the Hindus. Since then, the Indian Muslims remained under perpetual siege of their medieval masters and subsequently under their descendants. The upper class Indians who changed their faith for sharing power under the alien Muslim rulers diluted their Indian identity with the cultural identity of the former and were proud to consider themselves a part of Muslim Indians. The converted Indians belonging to lower strata of society however, never got equal social status.
Actually, the backwardness and miseries of Indian Muslims lie in their mental siege under the preachers of Islamic conservatism that has isolated them from their cultural past. The disturbed socio-political Hindu-Muslim relation in India as we see today is nothing but the historical legacy of the enslaved mindset of Indian Muslims being carried forward from generation to generation. The answer to their problem of so-called religious identity as often highlighted by the leadership in the community therefore, solely lies in their freedom from the grip of Islamic radicals. Ironically, even the contemporary Muslim 'liberals' have not made any concerted and unified efforts to free them from the perpetual mental siege.
Historically, the movement to keep the Indian Muslims under siege dates back to the last decade of sixteenth century when the great Mogul Emperor Akbar's religious 'liberalism' started decaying. Starting from Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi and followed by Muslim thinkers like Shah Wali Ullah, Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, Mohammad Allama Iqbal and others the movement for a separate Muslim identity which is basically synonymous to separate political identity with hegemony of Islamic power in this country remained a permanent feature of Muslim society in India. Their concerted efforts to keep the Indian Muslims under siege influenced even the contemporary Muslim thinkers who are the repositories of their heritage.
Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi (1564- 1624):
Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi, who was popularly known as Mujaddid (Renovator of Islam) had traced his descent from Caliph Umar. Rejecting the 'heterodoxies' of the great Mogul Emperor Akbar , this eminent Islamic mystic of his time and a hardcore Sunni Muslim strongly refuted the Shia point of view in his writing entitled "Risala Tahliliyya” and made a major contribution towards rehabilitation of orthodox Islam in India. He tried to influence the courtiers of Akbar and continued his tirade against the Hindus as well as Shia Muslims aggressively when Jahangir ascended the throne of Delhi. He is widely known among the Muslims for his letters written in Persian not only to his disciples but also to the influential Muslims in the court of Jahangir. His letters exercised great influence in turning the heterodoxies of Akbar to orthodoxies, which were pursued by all the subsequent Muslim rulers from Jahangir to Aurangzeb. He was so rigid in his approach towards Islam that he did not bend before the emperor as per the prevalent custom when he was summoned to the court of Jahangir. His plea that bending down before anyone except Allah was un-Islamic, annoyed Jahangir, who ordered for his imprisonment in Gwalior jail due to his discourteous behaviour. After a year however, Jahangir under the influence of his Islamic writings released him from jail and offered huge gifts to him. His tomb at Sarhind in Patiala is still an object of veneration (Islamic Encyclopaedia, Vol. I, Page297).
Shah Wali Ullah (1704-1762):
Shah Wali Ullah another Islamic mystic of the Sufi tradition of Sunnism who claimed his lineage from Quraysh tribe of Prophet Mohammad and of Umar, the second caliph was found more concerned with the political disorder after the death of Aurangzeb and the fading glory of Muslim power. With his religio-political thought that was based on the 'Persio -Islamic theory of kingship' (Shah Wali Allah and his Time by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, page 397) he wanted the Muslim society to return to the Prophet era for the political unity of the then Muslim rulers. He translated the writings of Sarhindi from Persian to Arabic to inspire the Muslim Indians and also invited Ahmad Shah Abdali, the king of Afghanistan to fight against the Marathas to save the subjugation of Muslims by the Hindus. His letter to Abdali was a part of his hate campaign against the Hindus. He did not believe in Indian nationhood or any national boundary for Muslims and therefore, invited Shah Abdali, Amir of Afghan to attack India (Third battle of Panipat 1761), in which Marathas were defeated. In his letter to the Afghan king he said, "…All control of power is with the Hindus because they are the only people who are industrious and adaptable. Riches and prosperity are theirs, while Muslims have nothing but poverty and misery. At this juncture you are the only person, who has the initiative, the foresight, the power and capability to defeat the enemy and free the Muslims from the clutches of the infidels. God forbid if their domination continues, Muslims will even forget Islam and become undistinguishable from the non-Muslims" (Dr. Sayed Riaz Ahmad in his book 'Maulana Maududi and Islamic state' - Lahore People's Publishing House, page 15 - 1976).
The political rise of non-Muslims like Maratha, Jat and Sikh powers and consequent danger to Islam of its political heritage was unbearable to Shah Wali Ullah. The slogan of 'Islam is in danger' - is profoundly embedded to his hate-non-Muslim ideology. The successive Muslim thinkers drew inspiration from his religio-political thought and carried forward his mission, which ultimately gave birth to the Islamic politics in India.
A great Muslim thinker and promoter of one of the most emotional chapters of Islamic revivalist movements in Indian subcontinent his political thought had brought the Indian Muslims under perpetual siege of Islamic orthodoxy. The on going Hindu-Muslim communal controversy in contemporary India is deeply rooted to his political Islamic theory. The most significant contribution of Wali Ullah(Allah) for his community is that his teachings kept alive the religious life of Indian Muslims linked with their inner spirit for re-establishment of Islamic political authority in India. It was the political theory of Wali ullah that kept the Indian Muslims emotional social disorder and deprived them of a from forward-looking vision.
Being proud of his Arab origin Wali Ullah was strongly opposed to integration of Islamic culture in the cultural cauldron of the sub-continent and wanted the Muslims to ensure their distance from it. "Waliullah did not want the Muslims to become part of the general milieu of the sub-continent. He wanted them to keep alive their relation with rest of the Muslim world so that the spring of their inspiration and ideals might ever remain located in Islam and tradition of world community developed by it". (The Muslim Community of Indo-Pakistan subcontinent by Istiaq Hussain Qureshi, 1985, Ibid. page 216). "In his opinion, the health of Muslim society demanded that doctrines and values inculcated by Islam should be maintained in their pristine purity unsullied by extraneous influences" (Ibid. page 215). The religio-political ideology of Wali Ullah made a permanent crack in Hindu--Muslim relation in this sub-continent, which undermined the self-pride and dignity of integrated Indian society.
Ahmad Barelavi (1786-1831):
Waliullh's son Abd al Aziz (1746-1823) carried forward the legacy of his father and as a result India faced violent communal disorder for decades. Aziz's disciple Saiyid Ahmad of Rai Bareli under the deep influence of the jehadi spirit of the faith propounded by Waliullah and Sunni extremism of Maulana Wahab of Saudi Arabia launched jehad against the non-Islamic power of the Sikh kingdom of Ranjit Singh with a view to restore Dar-ul-Islam (A land, where Islam is having political power). Though, he was killed in battle of Balkot in May 1831, Indian Muslims continue to regard him as martyr for the cause of Islam. Tired with their failures in re-establishing Muslim rule the followers of the jehadi spirit of faith kept their movement in suspended animation for decades due to the firm grip the British established on this country.
Post- Sepoy Mutiny (1857) Movement for Islamic revivalism through Islamic institutions:
The movement for Islamic fundamentalism got a severe jolt with the failure of the Sepoy mutiny in 1857, when the Muslim radicals lost all hopes to restore Islamic power in India. The Islamic clerics however, kept the movement alive through institutionalised Islamic movement and founded Islamic institutions like Darul-Ulum at Deoband , Nadawa al Ulama at Lucknow, and Darul-Ulum Manzar Islam in Bareilly. With thousands of madrasas theses institutions have been carrying forward the legacy of the religio-political concept of Wahab and Waliullah. Farangi Mahall was already founded at Lucknow during the period of Mogul Emperor Aurangzeb. These institutions, which continue to draw students " mainly from the starving Muslim peasantry and working lower middle classes" (Deoband School and Demand for Pakistan by Faruqi, page 40) are the representative bodies of Muslim proletariat. Leave aside the restoration of Islamic polity, these theological seminaries are today producing thousands of unemployed or under employed Islamic clerics without caring for their material prosperity. In the absence of any scope for re-interpretation of religion for democratic, secular, scientific, industrial and modern condition of the society, common Muslims do not see beyond mosques and madrasas. These institutions have therefore, succeeded in producing only self-proclaimed holy warriors of their jehadi faith. In the name of preserving the cultural identity of the Muslims these holy warriors are in fact serving the cause of self-seeking Muslim elite.
Aligarh Movement of Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan (1817-98):
Contrary to the Islamic revival movement only through theological education, Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, a Mogul scion and loyalist to British power launched a parallel Aligarh movement with the objective to provide modern education to Indian Muslims. He was the first scion of Mogul family in modern history of India, who launched a unique Muslim separatist movement with a political and educational ideology and an objective to restore the lost pride of his community after the fall of Mogul Empire. Deeply aggrieved with the plight of Muslim Indians particularly after the failure of Sepoy Mutiny in 1857and "acutely sensitive to the ending of Mogul dominance", he is widely known as founder of Islamic modernism in India. Though, a staunch believer in Sunni order of Islam, his outlook took a decisive change after the Sepoy Mutiny in which he had personally witnessed the sufferings of his community members at the hands of the British. But as a part of his tactical move to bring back the Muslims into the confidence of the British, he continued his loyalty to the British throne till his death.
Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan while taking inspiration from Shah Waliullah's concept of tactical moderation of Islam formulated the two-nation theory which not only formed the basis for the demand for a separate Muslim land of Pakistan but also coincided with the 'hate-Hindu campaign' of Shaikh Sarhind, Shah Wai-Ullah and Ahmad Barelavi. Through scientific and modern education to Muslims his movement produced a sizeable section of Muslim middle class with doctors, engineers, scientists and scholars of modern subjects. This new class of Muslim however, also came under the influence of the fundamentalist forces, worked as the fighting force for Muslim elite and gradually succeeded in besieging the mindset of common Muslim masses. Strongly opposing the formation of Indian National Congress in 1885 on the plea that it was a Hindu dominated organisation Ahmad Khan prevented the Muslim elite from joining it. Restoring confidence among the despairing Muslims of his age he is largely regarded "as a forerunner of Pakistan".
Instead of making any sincere effort towards the Hindu-Muslim unity Sir Sayed Ahmad rather convinced the British rulers that the two major religious communities of India were not capable for unity. (Hali's Hayat-e-Javed, translated by K.H.Kadari and David Matthews, 1979, page 199, Idarh-e-adabiyat-e-Delhi Qasimjan Street, Delhi - Quoted from Pioneer dated 20.10 2004 in a letter to editor column by Roopa Kaushal).
A noted Muslim scholar M.R.A.Baig also observed:
“ Being a descendant of high Mogul officials, he emotionally could not accept that Muslims should be ruled by their former subjects. He also feared that Hindu rule will result in the imposition of Aryo-Dravidian culture on the Muslim Perso-Arabic civilisation”( The Muslim Dilemma in India by M.R.A. Baig – page 51-52).
Religious obsession of Muslims remained a potential factor during freedom struggle and formation of All India Muslim League (AIML) in 1906. Internationally known historian R.C.Majumdar in his book 'Struggle for Freedom' (Page 127, 1969) maintained:"Aligarh movement gradually alienated the Muslims from the Hindus in the political field…..The anti-Hindu feeling was conspicuously shown in the Muslims' attitude towards Indian National Congress since its very inception". He further said:
"It occurred to the Muslims that in order to counteract the political organisation of the Hindus, particularly the Congress, they must have a central organisation of their own" (Page 150, 1969). He added, "the spirit of Syed Ahmad dominated the Muslims who with rare exceptions, regarded themselves as Muslim first and Indian afterwards" (Ibid. Page 152). He quoted Sir Percival Griffiths, ICS, who "stressed the Muslim belief that their interest must be regarded as completely separate from those of the Hindus, and that no fusion of the two communities was possible"(Ibid. Page153). "Middle class Muslim nationalism sabotaged the natural process of electoral democratisation"(Ameena A.Saeed in an interview in Times of India dated November 29, 2003).
The educational ideology of Sir Sayed Khan provoked a violent reaction from Islamic orthodoxy but his followers gradually overcame this problem. Aligarh Muslim University, a citadel of Muslim Middle class played a major role in Pakistan movement under the guidance of Muslim elite. The then Muslim leadership used this new class to strengthen the siege of Islamic orthodoxy over the common Muslims with the ultimate objective to achieve its political hegemony. Even today Indian Muslims are proud of Aligarh Muslim University.
Urdu Movement:
The alien Muslim rulers created Urdu as lingua franca (Mixture of different languages for convenience) by mixing over fifty percent vocabularies from Turkish, Persian and Arabic in native dialects. While Persian was used as principal standard written language for administrative purposes, the Muslim rulers with the intention to establish their permanent political, economic, cultural and linguistic hegemony in India pushed Urdu as a substitute for the native languages, which had Sanskrit origin and Nagari script. Urdu was gradually saturated with Perso-Arabic script, metaphors, similes, the forms of verse, prosody with about sixty percent of vocabulary, content of mannerism and poetic thought of Islamic and Persian traditions. The birth of Urdu therefore, created the first social division in Indian society.
Since the advent of British establishment in India, Muslims have been struggling for revival of the medieval pride of Urdu. Initially, the use of Urdu was confined to urbanised Muslim elite and of those Hindus, whose economic interest was linked with it. But due to its alien character it never became acceptable to native dwellers. Gradually it formed part of communal, parochial and Muslim politics in the country and was also linked with the cultural identity of Muslims. The pride of place given to Urdu in the literary courts of Muslim rulers made this new language a status symbol of the elite section of Muslims. Its Persianisation and Arabisation and imposed supremacy over regional languages always remained a source of irritant for the common Hindus as it disturbed the homogeneity of Indian society. Obsession of Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan to the linguistic supremacy of Urdu as a symbol of Muslim domination over the cultural and linguistic identity of this country gave credence to a first movement for recognition of Hindi as the second official language of North Western Provinces. Urdu-Hindi controversy therefore, originated from the Muslim renaissance movement launched after the failure of Sepoy Mutiny in 1857.
Organisations like Arya Samaj, Punjab Brahma Sabha, Sat Sabha and Sikh National Association joined the Hindi movement and voiced their opposition to Urdu before the respective units of Education Commission set up by the British to frame the education policy for India. Realising the gravity of situation the British Government introduced Hindi with Devanagari script in Bihar in the year 1880 despite the protest of Muslims. The aggressiveness of Hindi movement "affirmed that for Hindus Urdu was a pure and simple survival of Muslim tyranny" ((Muslim Politics and Leadership in the South Asian Sub-continent by Yusuf Abbasi, 1981, page 90). Introduction of Hindi in Bihar "quickened the pace of Hindi movement in North West Provinces and later in United Province"(Ibid. page190). "Urdu never indeed took root in the soil of rural India. One reason for this was its snobbish aversion to the dialects of the regions, where Urdu was supposed to have deep roots" (Anwar Azim in his essay entitled 'Urdu a victim of cultural genocide' published in a book entitled Muslims in India edited by Zafar Imam, 1975, page 259).
The followers of Aligarh movement strongly opposed the replacement of Persian script with Nagri in the court of United Province in April 1900. The Muslims took it as challenge to the supremacy of their cultural identity and launched an agitation to oppose Nagari resolution. They converted the Muhammadan Anglo Oriental Defence Association (an outfit of Aligarh Movement) into Urdu Defence Association, which was a starting point to corrode the unity of the national Freedom Movement. Ironically, Deoband Movement, which was opposed to Aligarh movement joined the Urdu Movement by identifying it as threat to Islam. Had Muslim thinkers been honest to develop Urdu in the literary tradition of this land with local script, Indian masses would have perhaps lapped it. Urdu Ghazals printed in Devanagari script are much more on sale than its print in Perso-Arabic script. In ancient India Sanskrit was initially written in Brahmi script but due to its complexity Devanagari script was developed, which was easier to learn. But obsession of Muslim thinkers to carry forward Perso-Arabic legacy of Urdu identified this language with the identity of Muslims as a separate social entity and created major hindrance for it to become a language of common Indians. Such tendency of Muslim thinkers encouraged linguistic separatism and hence Indian masses rejected it.
Formation of Muslim League:
Aligarh movement was the force behind the ideology of political exclusivism in the name of religion, which prompted All India Mohammedan Educational Conference held in Dacca (December 27-30, 1906) to form the All India Muslim League. Since then AIML maintained a visible social and political distance from the Hindus and the Indian National Congress respectively. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a prominent leader of the Congress did not join the AIML till 1913 though, he supported the League movement for separate electorate for Muslims. Within the Congress he however always tried to bargain for one-third reservation for his community. Formation of AIML was a major landmark in the history of modern India. The first formal entry of a centrally organised political party exclusively for Muslims had the following main objectives:
"To promote among the Musssalmans of India, feelings of loyalty to the British Government, and remove any misconception that may arise as to the instruction of Government with regard to any of its measures.
To protect and advance the political rights and interests of Mussalmans of India, and to respectfully represent their needs and aspirations to the Government."
After the formation of Muslim League, the Muslim Indians, in stead of battling against the British remained consistently fighting a war against Indian National Congress a party that they described as of Hindus. Since they had no love for any democratic polity and did not foresee the possibility of restoration of Perso-Arabic hegemony over the Hindu majority with resurgence of Islamic rule in the country, demand for creation of Pakistan became their sole political agenda. They therefore tightened their grip over Indian Muslims who remained constantly under their siege since the establishment of Muslim rule in the country. Formation of Muslim League opened a floodgate for Indian Muslims, who never looked back to their cultural past. Since then various Muslim organisations like Jamaat-e-Ulema-e-Hind, Tbliq Jamaat, and Jamaat-e-Islami accelerated the Muslim separatist movement to keep their community members under siege.
Emergence of Iqbal as Ideological Father of Pakistan.
Allama Iqbal (1873/76-1938) widely known as a romantic and Indian nationalist poet experienced a "mental crisis" after his return from Europe in the first decade of nineteenth century. Being sensitive to the problems of Muslims, he took keen interest in Islamic mystical philosophy but used his intellectual brilliance only to strengthen the grip of All India Muslim League over Muslim masses. His spiritual and political guidance to his community for a separate Muslim state served as bedrock for demand for Pakistan. He is therefore, called 'spiritual father of Pakistan'. "Iqbal combines many contradictory trends in himself; his verses could serve both conservatives and progressives as weapons"( Encyclopaedia of Islam, Brill, Volume III, page 1059).
A product of the movement of Islamic revivalism, which was based on the medieval concept of Muslim solidarity, Iqbal is also known as a poet of Muslim awakening in India. "He stood for going ahead with the Quran and revival of Islamic polity without realising how the simple polity of earlier Islam was incompatible with the complexities of modern civilisation". "He attempted to provide a systematic Islamic base to the socio-political ideas of Indian Muslims" (Politics of Minorities by Moin Shakir, 1980, Ajanta Publication, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi, page142). His romantic ideas meant for reviving the interest of elite Muslim Indians to hypnotise the common Indian Muslims and subordinate them to the former. "Everything was made subordinate to the interest of ruling elite; science, philosophy, democracy, constitution and fundamental rights of equality and liberty were subservient to the exploiting class" (Ibid.).
Like Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, Iqbal also failed to assimilate his liberal thought with the global concept of democracy and could not free himself from the medieval moorings of Islam. He propagated the political solidarity of Muslims on the basis of religion, which fulfilled the political ambition of a section of Muslim elite who got independent power in Pakistan after partition of the country. Indian Muslims who supported the thesis of Iqbal but stayed back in India got nothing but only demoralisation for the betrayal of their leaders. Ironically, Indian Muslims are still proud of Iqbal. He is widely known for politicising the two-nation theory initially propounded by Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan. Muslim League with Iqbal as president adopted a resolution in its Allahabad Conference in 1930, which formed the basis for demand of Pakistan in 1940. Initially Mohammed Ali Jinnah was also an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity but to fulfill his political ambition he took an about turn and led the movement for Muslim separatism, which was launched to negate the tactical move of Mogul Emperor Akbar to rule this country through Islamic 'liberalism'.
After the exit of colonial power, British India was politically divided between 'Hindu India' and Muslim India with Pakistan as a new name to the latter. This division was however, converted into political division only in August 1947, which had the endorsement of over ninety- percent of the Muslims of undivided India. But ironically, of the total thirty percent of Muslim population of British India, about ten percent stayed back in 'Hindu India'.
Common Indian Muslims never understood the complexity of Pakistan movement, which they had blindly supported in the name of religion. Once they understood the reality of partition they were hapless and helpless. They however, did not learn a lesson from the betrayel of their leaders who again misguided them before leaving for Pakistan with a slogan - "Hans Kar Liya Pakistan Lad Kar Lenge Hindustan"(We got Pakistan with smile, we will take Hindustan with fight). A larger majority of the Muslim leaders, who were first Muslims than Indian went to Pakistan but handed over the besieged Indian Muslims who had actively participated in their fight for partition under perpetual siege of Islamic fundamentalists.
Some of the Muslim Indians understood the rising tide of Indian nationalism during freedom movement and took refuge under Nehruvian concept of secularism after Independence. They however, kept patronising the radical Islamists who carried forward the conceptual legacy of Islamic glory in the sub-continent. Emergence of Indian Union Muslim League, a new incarnation of All India Muslim League and multiplication of madrasas in post-colonial India reveal that Muslim Indians did not like to free the common Muslim masses from the siege of the Islamic clerics.
While Pakistan was declared an Islamic State, India accepted democracy and secularism with not only equal right to all its citizens but also certain special rights to Muslims as a minority community. India did not give any constitutional recognition to Hinduism even though its formation was based on religion. The Hindus of Pakistan did not vote for a religion based state but they were forced to migrate to 'Hindu India'. In south Asian countries India is an exception for not giving constitutional recognition to the religion on the basis of which it was reorganised after the end of British rule. The Hindus of this new India however, never raised any assertive voice for constitutional recognition to their religion as the ancient scriptures of this land suggest 'Sarva Dharm Sambhav' (Equal respect to all the religions).
The post-Independence behaviour of Indian Muslims hardly had any change. Their various grievances in the name of Muslim identity are being exploited by all the political parties that treat them as a vote bank only without taking any step to free them from their siege. These demoralised religio-social group that stayed back in India after partition, did not learn any lesson from the betrayal of their leaders. Gradually, the Indian people learnt to ignore the bitter past of partition and accepted the ground reality as such.
In post-colonial Indian polity the Muslims leadership kept their community polarised in favour of Congress for over two decades since Independence. Meanwhile, organisations like All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat were formed to bring the Indian Muslims under common platform but it too failed to resolve their socio-psychological confusion. Organisations like Student Islamic Movement of India emerged to re-infuse the concept of Islamic extremism among the Indian Muslims. Division of Pakistan with the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 for which India under Congress rule fought a decisive war was not palatable either for Muslim Indians
The 'secular' intellectuals belonging to the Muslim community consider themselves as repositories of the heritage of Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi to Allama Iqbal. Instead of identifying the fault lines in the insistence of Muslim clerics on excluvist identity of their community and transforming their opinion , the Muslim 'liberals' are not ready to free their co-religionists from their mental siege. The Muslim 'liberals' are not ready to free their co-religionists from their perpetual mental siege. So long as these 'secular' Muslims do not recognise the civilisational underpinnings of pre-medieval India and link the Indian Muslims to their roots for which no compromise to the spiritual Islam is required - possibility of the freedom of common Muslims from the siege of Islamic fundamentalism is ruled out.
"As long as Muslims felt that they were an important and even decisive element of the ruling group they did not feel that they were a minority a term that implicitly condemns a community to the margins" (M.J.Akbar in his foreword of 'Indian Muslims : Where have they gone wrong' by Rafiq Zakaria, Bhartiya Vudya Bhavan, Mumbai, 2004).There are a number of Muslim intellectuals who write about this bitter truth but it is an irony that they hardly speak this truth assertively when they face Muslim congregations. They often quote the address of Maulam Azad to the demoralised Indian Muslims in front of Jama Masjid after partition but they hardly assert to ensure that the Indian Muslims are freed from their medieval mindset and grip of Muslim Indians. The most unfortunate part of their intellectually cowardice attitude is that they do not intend to write or speak the truth for common Muslims.
If the Muslim scholars are genuine secularists with conviction, they should launch an assertive movement and intellectual jehad to generate collective concern among the Muslim leaders to free the masses from the siege of the Ulema. As a first step they are to free common Muslims from the medieval psyche of Ibrahim Khan's 'Red Pamphlet' - "Ye Mussalman arise awake! Do not read in the same school with Hindus". This is possible only if all the theological seminaries are converted into educational institutions to impart modern and scientific education with a paper preferably optional on theological subject. Kalama, Namaz, Roja, Jakat and Haj, are perhaps the only ingredients of spiritual Islam to maintain Muslim identity. Islam may be a complete way of life during Prophet era but can't it be moderated according to global civilisational changes as has been done in many Islamic countries? Muslim elite and middle class in the community are unfortunately neither ready to unload their medieval mental burden nor feel the need to free the ignorant Muslim masses from the siege of Islamic fundamentalists. Though, this communal conflict is being carried forward by the radical Islamists as a legacy of their religious intolerance, the Muslim scholars often project it as an outcome of divide and rule policy of the British.
In post Independent India, Muslim 'secularists' have been putting blame on Hindu nationalists for the Hindu-Muslim divide. But they never raise any voice against Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, who sowed the seed of two-nation theory and Allama Iqbal who propagated it. Both of them are highly revered among the Indian Muslims. They never condemn Fida Hussain some of whose paintings were the burning example of blasphemy. They are also fond of putting blame on Indian National Congress for sabotaging the efforts of Mahatma Gandi for Hindu Muslim unity. They often refer to Motilal Nehru's report for ignoring the constitutional demand of the Muslims, which compelled a secular leader like Jinnah turning communal. Putting blame on others for own follies is intellectual dishonesty. Zakaria admits that "Indian Muslims became pawns in the hands of political parties" but he has ignored the historical facts that his community members always remained under the siege of the Muslim elite of this country. Is it not a historical fact that the Indians converted to Islam were forced to forget their civilisational roots from the day they changed their faith? Were they not forced to give up their cultural identity before conversion?
Hindus have no inhibition to pay reverence to Dargah of Muslim saints as they believe God in any form but Muslim leaders hardly reciprocate such gesture by joining the religious congregation of Hindus. They talk of reconciliation but are not ready to cross the barricade of Islamic injunctions. They quote Akbar Allahabadi who mocked the Mullah - " why should they travel by train when camel is available" but they never came out aggressively against the Mullah who openly expressed high regards to Osama bin Laden or loudly said that family planning is against Islam. If they do not want the Muslims to defy the Prophet's tradition how can they ask their community members to "discard the outmoded traditions and out of date conventions"?(Rafiq Zakaria in Indian Muslims - Where have they gone wrong, Page XXXIX, Bharati Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, 2004).
Through the ages from Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi to Shah Waliullah and from Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan to Sir Allama Iqbal the Indian Muslims have devolved themselves to maintain a separate identity. The contemporary Muslim thinkers of 'secular' and democratic India have ignored this perpetual devolution of Indian Muslims. M.J.Akbar, a reputed journalist rather found "Indian Muslims evolving through ages " and linked their evolution through the poetry of Khushru, Ghalib, Iqbal and Akbar Allahabadi. Zakaria in his book complemented M.J.Akbar and said that he had " convincingly refuted Sir Vidia Naipaul for his propagation that Indian Muslims have developed no roots in India ". Every Indian would have gladly accepted this compliment of Zakaria had the Indian Muslims been also sensitive to the cultural and religious sentiments of the majority community of this country.
If Muslim 'secularists, do not want to spell out their mind on historical facts and want the Indian Muslims to join the national mainstream without unloading their mental burden of medieval India, they are perhaps also falling in the same line of Muslim Indians who do not want to free their own community members from their siege. How does Mr Zakaria expect the Indian Muslims to respond to his saner advice "to take a realistic stand and sincerely work for collaboration with Hindus" until and unless he intellectually confronts with Muslim Indians for freedom of common Muslims from their medieval psyche? There is no dearth of Muslim intellectuals who in their informal talk criticise the Mullahs but they do not have the courage to confront them. If the Hindu intellectuals raise their voice against the siege of Indian Muslims, they are branded communal.
Without any deep understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of the cultural tradition of Indian society, obsession towards any exclusive identity on the basis of religion is always detrimental to social harmony. The crux of the social tradition of Indian society was a value- oriented concept of dignified co-existence, which was however disturbed after the establishment of Muslim rule in the country. "The notions of pluralism, equality and identity cannot be translated into practice if pursued independently" (Pluralism, Equality and Identity: Comparative Studies by T.K.Oommen, Oxford University Press, 2002, Page 1).
Islam or Christianity never had any identity problem in India before the establishment of Muslim and colonial rule in this country. Identity conflict started only when the Hindus were discriminated on the basis of their religion and they had to suffer due to atrocious behaviour of the alien rulers. Conversion through force or allurement was the main reason behind conflict in religious identity.
Nationality is basically a geo-cultural identity, which the Muslims in India have always disputed. M. Mujeeb, a noted Muslim scholar and expert of the history of Indian Muslims observed that the Muslims claim adherence to Sharia in principle but disregard it in practice. In support of his view he gives example of Muslim landlords, who often create private trust to prevent their daughters from getting share in the landed property of the family. They however, claim themselves to be the upholders of Sharia. (Islamic Law in Modern India edited by Tahir Mahmood, 1972, Page 9). Similarly, Muslim elite hardly makes any sincere effort to encourage the poor and economically backward Muslims towards modern education, which may qualify and induce them to think freely and independently. Madrasa education is producing merchants for selling reserved accommodation in heaven after death but at the cost of poverty in present life. Well off Muslims hardly send their children for study in madrasas.
The monumental wonders erected by Muslim rulers in different parts of India are symbols of Islam. These monuments gradually got the status of national heritage. No 'secular' writer is ready to pen this truth about the misuse of the public exchequer that could have been spent over the economic development of the people. Such lavish expenditure at the whims and fancies of the Muslim rulers reflect their luxurious style of living which may be contrary to the spiritual concept of Islam.
The End of British rule provided opportunities to Indian Muslims to unload their burden of medieval psyche and legacy of Islamic concept of democracy by integrating themselves in Indian society. The Muslim clergies in support of the elite section in their community however, did not free them to do so but rather tightened their grip over them in the name of religion. The political leadership of the country on the other hand allowed the communal divide for vote bank politics that has kept the Indian Muslims under perpetual siege. Had the Indian Muslims been kept out of political Islam and encouraged for adherence only to the fundamentals of spiritual Islam that is Kalama, Namaz, Roza, Jakat and Haz the gap of communal divide might have decreased. In stead of treating them as a political group had they been accepted only as a religious social group the question of their religious identity would not have arisen. In the name of religious identity the Muslim Indians are fighting only for their political identity with a constituency of Muslim voters.
Post-Independence history of India reveals that there was hardly any communal riot on the issue of spiritual Islam. But Muslim Indians in their lust for sharing political power used their community members in the name of religion only for their vested political interest. Gradually, the use of religion became a national strategy of power politics in the country.
The post-Independence behaviour of Indian Muslims hardly had any change. Their grievances in the name of Muslim identity are being exploited by all the political parties that treat them as a vote bank only without taking any step to free them from their siege. With the rising tide of 'Hindutva' the demoralised Muslim community maintained a low profile but formulated the strategy of tactical voting against the BJP in election and succeeded in removing it from power at centre in 2004. Tactical voting of Muslims against the BJP was one of the major reasons for the defeat of the party in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Maharashtra. How long this strategy will help the Muslim Indians only time will say but this dangerous trend may be counter productive if the Hindus are also polarised as it happened in the last Gujarat Assembly election. This strategy of Muslim Indians could aggravate the growth of Islamic fundamentalism, which is not in the interest of the country.
Link - http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers12/paper1160.html
by R. Upadhyay
The history of Indian Muslims is so complex that their isolation from the national mainstream and consequent socio-psychological confusion have remained a puzzle for social scientists. A study based on the factual developments related to this distinct and a unique religio-social group may help the reader to draw right conclusions.
With the collapse of Moghul Empire, the Muslim bourgeoisie, who prefer to call themselves Muslim Indians and not Indian Muslims have been struggling to keep the Indian Muslims under a mental blockade by using Islam as weapon. They treat their community members as a communal constituency to bargain with the contemporary ruling class to share political power. Assertive insistence of Islamic clerics on a separate Muslim identity in a diverse but united society worked as a catalyst to accelerate the movement for Muslim separatism launched in this country for centuries.
Since the advent of Muslim rule in India, Indian Muslims have been suffering from the malady of hate and divisive politics of the ruling class. Initially, they became the victims of Muslim Indians who had converted them for their self-seeking interest and subsequently of the political class in their politics of vote arithmetic. Ironically, they have never realised that they have been under siege under Muslim Indians, who continue to carry forward the legacy of Sarhindi to Iqbal.
Muslim invaders had massacred unaccountable number of native population and destroyed large number of temples in the name of Islam. They converted large number of Indians into Islam and kept them segregated from the Hindus. Since then, the Indian Muslims remained under perpetual siege of their medieval masters and subsequently under their descendants. The upper class Indians who changed their faith for sharing power under the alien Muslim rulers diluted their Indian identity with the cultural identity of the former and were proud to consider themselves a part of Muslim Indians. The converted Indians belonging to lower strata of society however, never got equal social status.
Actually, the backwardness and miseries of Indian Muslims lie in their mental siege under the preachers of Islamic conservatism that has isolated them from their cultural past. The disturbed socio-political Hindu-Muslim relation in India as we see today is nothing but the historical legacy of the enslaved mindset of Indian Muslims being carried forward from generation to generation. The answer to their problem of so-called religious identity as often highlighted by the leadership in the community therefore, solely lies in their freedom from the grip of Islamic radicals. Ironically, even the contemporary Muslim 'liberals' have not made any concerted and unified efforts to free them from the perpetual mental siege.
Historically, the movement to keep the Indian Muslims under siege dates back to the last decade of sixteenth century when the great Mogul Emperor Akbar's religious 'liberalism' started decaying. Starting from Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi and followed by Muslim thinkers like Shah Wali Ullah, Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, Mohammad Allama Iqbal and others the movement for a separate Muslim identity which is basically synonymous to separate political identity with hegemony of Islamic power in this country remained a permanent feature of Muslim society in India. Their concerted efforts to keep the Indian Muslims under siege influenced even the contemporary Muslim thinkers who are the repositories of their heritage.
Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi (1564- 1624):
Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi, who was popularly known as Mujaddid (Renovator of Islam) had traced his descent from Caliph Umar. Rejecting the 'heterodoxies' of the great Mogul Emperor Akbar , this eminent Islamic mystic of his time and a hardcore Sunni Muslim strongly refuted the Shia point of view in his writing entitled "Risala Tahliliyya” and made a major contribution towards rehabilitation of orthodox Islam in India. He tried to influence the courtiers of Akbar and continued his tirade against the Hindus as well as Shia Muslims aggressively when Jahangir ascended the throne of Delhi. He is widely known among the Muslims for his letters written in Persian not only to his disciples but also to the influential Muslims in the court of Jahangir. His letters exercised great influence in turning the heterodoxies of Akbar to orthodoxies, which were pursued by all the subsequent Muslim rulers from Jahangir to Aurangzeb. He was so rigid in his approach towards Islam that he did not bend before the emperor as per the prevalent custom when he was summoned to the court of Jahangir. His plea that bending down before anyone except Allah was un-Islamic, annoyed Jahangir, who ordered for his imprisonment in Gwalior jail due to his discourteous behaviour. After a year however, Jahangir under the influence of his Islamic writings released him from jail and offered huge gifts to him. His tomb at Sarhind in Patiala is still an object of veneration (Islamic Encyclopaedia, Vol. I, Page297).
Shah Wali Ullah (1704-1762):
Shah Wali Ullah another Islamic mystic of the Sufi tradition of Sunnism who claimed his lineage from Quraysh tribe of Prophet Mohammad and of Umar, the second caliph was found more concerned with the political disorder after the death of Aurangzeb and the fading glory of Muslim power. With his religio-political thought that was based on the 'Persio -Islamic theory of kingship' (Shah Wali Allah and his Time by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, page 397) he wanted the Muslim society to return to the Prophet era for the political unity of the then Muslim rulers. He translated the writings of Sarhindi from Persian to Arabic to inspire the Muslim Indians and also invited Ahmad Shah Abdali, the king of Afghanistan to fight against the Marathas to save the subjugation of Muslims by the Hindus. His letter to Abdali was a part of his hate campaign against the Hindus. He did not believe in Indian nationhood or any national boundary for Muslims and therefore, invited Shah Abdali, Amir of Afghan to attack India (Third battle of Panipat 1761), in which Marathas were defeated. In his letter to the Afghan king he said, "…All control of power is with the Hindus because they are the only people who are industrious and adaptable. Riches and prosperity are theirs, while Muslims have nothing but poverty and misery. At this juncture you are the only person, who has the initiative, the foresight, the power and capability to defeat the enemy and free the Muslims from the clutches of the infidels. God forbid if their domination continues, Muslims will even forget Islam and become undistinguishable from the non-Muslims" (Dr. Sayed Riaz Ahmad in his book 'Maulana Maududi and Islamic state' - Lahore People's Publishing House, page 15 - 1976).
The political rise of non-Muslims like Maratha, Jat and Sikh powers and consequent danger to Islam of its political heritage was unbearable to Shah Wali Ullah. The slogan of 'Islam is in danger' - is profoundly embedded to his hate-non-Muslim ideology. The successive Muslim thinkers drew inspiration from his religio-political thought and carried forward his mission, which ultimately gave birth to the Islamic politics in India.
A great Muslim thinker and promoter of one of the most emotional chapters of Islamic revivalist movements in Indian subcontinent his political thought had brought the Indian Muslims under perpetual siege of Islamic orthodoxy. The on going Hindu-Muslim communal controversy in contemporary India is deeply rooted to his political Islamic theory. The most significant contribution of Wali Ullah(Allah) for his community is that his teachings kept alive the religious life of Indian Muslims linked with their inner spirit for re-establishment of Islamic political authority in India. It was the political theory of Wali ullah that kept the Indian Muslims emotional social disorder and deprived them of a from forward-looking vision.
Being proud of his Arab origin Wali Ullah was strongly opposed to integration of Islamic culture in the cultural cauldron of the sub-continent and wanted the Muslims to ensure their distance from it. "Waliullah did not want the Muslims to become part of the general milieu of the sub-continent. He wanted them to keep alive their relation with rest of the Muslim world so that the spring of their inspiration and ideals might ever remain located in Islam and tradition of world community developed by it". (The Muslim Community of Indo-Pakistan subcontinent by Istiaq Hussain Qureshi, 1985, Ibid. page 216). "In his opinion, the health of Muslim society demanded that doctrines and values inculcated by Islam should be maintained in their pristine purity unsullied by extraneous influences" (Ibid. page 215). The religio-political ideology of Wali Ullah made a permanent crack in Hindu--Muslim relation in this sub-continent, which undermined the self-pride and dignity of integrated Indian society.
Ahmad Barelavi (1786-1831):
Waliullh's son Abd al Aziz (1746-1823) carried forward the legacy of his father and as a result India faced violent communal disorder for decades. Aziz's disciple Saiyid Ahmad of Rai Bareli under the deep influence of the jehadi spirit of the faith propounded by Waliullah and Sunni extremism of Maulana Wahab of Saudi Arabia launched jehad against the non-Islamic power of the Sikh kingdom of Ranjit Singh with a view to restore Dar-ul-Islam (A land, where Islam is having political power). Though, he was killed in battle of Balkot in May 1831, Indian Muslims continue to regard him as martyr for the cause of Islam. Tired with their failures in re-establishing Muslim rule the followers of the jehadi spirit of faith kept their movement in suspended animation for decades due to the firm grip the British established on this country.
Post- Sepoy Mutiny (1857) Movement for Islamic revivalism through Islamic institutions:
The movement for Islamic fundamentalism got a severe jolt with the failure of the Sepoy mutiny in 1857, when the Muslim radicals lost all hopes to restore Islamic power in India. The Islamic clerics however, kept the movement alive through institutionalised Islamic movement and founded Islamic institutions like Darul-Ulum at Deoband , Nadawa al Ulama at Lucknow, and Darul-Ulum Manzar Islam in Bareilly. With thousands of madrasas theses institutions have been carrying forward the legacy of the religio-political concept of Wahab and Waliullah. Farangi Mahall was already founded at Lucknow during the period of Mogul Emperor Aurangzeb. These institutions, which continue to draw students " mainly from the starving Muslim peasantry and working lower middle classes" (Deoband School and Demand for Pakistan by Faruqi, page 40) are the representative bodies of Muslim proletariat. Leave aside the restoration of Islamic polity, these theological seminaries are today producing thousands of unemployed or under employed Islamic clerics without caring for their material prosperity. In the absence of any scope for re-interpretation of religion for democratic, secular, scientific, industrial and modern condition of the society, common Muslims do not see beyond mosques and madrasas. These institutions have therefore, succeeded in producing only self-proclaimed holy warriors of their jehadi faith. In the name of preserving the cultural identity of the Muslims these holy warriors are in fact serving the cause of self-seeking Muslim elite.
Aligarh Movement of Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan (1817-98):
Contrary to the Islamic revival movement only through theological education, Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, a Mogul scion and loyalist to British power launched a parallel Aligarh movement with the objective to provide modern education to Indian Muslims. He was the first scion of Mogul family in modern history of India, who launched a unique Muslim separatist movement with a political and educational ideology and an objective to restore the lost pride of his community after the fall of Mogul Empire. Deeply aggrieved with the plight of Muslim Indians particularly after the failure of Sepoy Mutiny in 1857and "acutely sensitive to the ending of Mogul dominance", he is widely known as founder of Islamic modernism in India. Though, a staunch believer in Sunni order of Islam, his outlook took a decisive change after the Sepoy Mutiny in which he had personally witnessed the sufferings of his community members at the hands of the British. But as a part of his tactical move to bring back the Muslims into the confidence of the British, he continued his loyalty to the British throne till his death.
Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan while taking inspiration from Shah Waliullah's concept of tactical moderation of Islam formulated the two-nation theory which not only formed the basis for the demand for a separate Muslim land of Pakistan but also coincided with the 'hate-Hindu campaign' of Shaikh Sarhind, Shah Wai-Ullah and Ahmad Barelavi. Through scientific and modern education to Muslims his movement produced a sizeable section of Muslim middle class with doctors, engineers, scientists and scholars of modern subjects. This new class of Muslim however, also came under the influence of the fundamentalist forces, worked as the fighting force for Muslim elite and gradually succeeded in besieging the mindset of common Muslim masses. Strongly opposing the formation of Indian National Congress in 1885 on the plea that it was a Hindu dominated organisation Ahmad Khan prevented the Muslim elite from joining it. Restoring confidence among the despairing Muslims of his age he is largely regarded "as a forerunner of Pakistan".
Instead of making any sincere effort towards the Hindu-Muslim unity Sir Sayed Ahmad rather convinced the British rulers that the two major religious communities of India were not capable for unity. (Hali's Hayat-e-Javed, translated by K.H.Kadari and David Matthews, 1979, page 199, Idarh-e-adabiyat-e-Delhi Qasimjan Street, Delhi - Quoted from Pioneer dated 20.10 2004 in a letter to editor column by Roopa Kaushal).
A noted Muslim scholar M.R.A.Baig also observed:
“ Being a descendant of high Mogul officials, he emotionally could not accept that Muslims should be ruled by their former subjects. He also feared that Hindu rule will result in the imposition of Aryo-Dravidian culture on the Muslim Perso-Arabic civilisation”( The Muslim Dilemma in India by M.R.A. Baig – page 51-52).
Religious obsession of Muslims remained a potential factor during freedom struggle and formation of All India Muslim League (AIML) in 1906. Internationally known historian R.C.Majumdar in his book 'Struggle for Freedom' (Page 127, 1969) maintained:"Aligarh movement gradually alienated the Muslims from the Hindus in the political field…..The anti-Hindu feeling was conspicuously shown in the Muslims' attitude towards Indian National Congress since its very inception". He further said:
"It occurred to the Muslims that in order to counteract the political organisation of the Hindus, particularly the Congress, they must have a central organisation of their own" (Page 150, 1969). He added, "the spirit of Syed Ahmad dominated the Muslims who with rare exceptions, regarded themselves as Muslim first and Indian afterwards" (Ibid. Page 152). He quoted Sir Percival Griffiths, ICS, who "stressed the Muslim belief that their interest must be regarded as completely separate from those of the Hindus, and that no fusion of the two communities was possible"(Ibid. Page153). "Middle class Muslim nationalism sabotaged the natural process of electoral democratisation"(Ameena A.Saeed in an interview in Times of India dated November 29, 2003).
The educational ideology of Sir Sayed Khan provoked a violent reaction from Islamic orthodoxy but his followers gradually overcame this problem. Aligarh Muslim University, a citadel of Muslim Middle class played a major role in Pakistan movement under the guidance of Muslim elite. The then Muslim leadership used this new class to strengthen the siege of Islamic orthodoxy over the common Muslims with the ultimate objective to achieve its political hegemony. Even today Indian Muslims are proud of Aligarh Muslim University.
Urdu Movement:
The alien Muslim rulers created Urdu as lingua franca (Mixture of different languages for convenience) by mixing over fifty percent vocabularies from Turkish, Persian and Arabic in native dialects. While Persian was used as principal standard written language for administrative purposes, the Muslim rulers with the intention to establish their permanent political, economic, cultural and linguistic hegemony in India pushed Urdu as a substitute for the native languages, which had Sanskrit origin and Nagari script. Urdu was gradually saturated with Perso-Arabic script, metaphors, similes, the forms of verse, prosody with about sixty percent of vocabulary, content of mannerism and poetic thought of Islamic and Persian traditions. The birth of Urdu therefore, created the first social division in Indian society.
Since the advent of British establishment in India, Muslims have been struggling for revival of the medieval pride of Urdu. Initially, the use of Urdu was confined to urbanised Muslim elite and of those Hindus, whose economic interest was linked with it. But due to its alien character it never became acceptable to native dwellers. Gradually it formed part of communal, parochial and Muslim politics in the country and was also linked with the cultural identity of Muslims. The pride of place given to Urdu in the literary courts of Muslim rulers made this new language a status symbol of the elite section of Muslims. Its Persianisation and Arabisation and imposed supremacy over regional languages always remained a source of irritant for the common Hindus as it disturbed the homogeneity of Indian society. Obsession of Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan to the linguistic supremacy of Urdu as a symbol of Muslim domination over the cultural and linguistic identity of this country gave credence to a first movement for recognition of Hindi as the second official language of North Western Provinces. Urdu-Hindi controversy therefore, originated from the Muslim renaissance movement launched after the failure of Sepoy Mutiny in 1857.
Organisations like Arya Samaj, Punjab Brahma Sabha, Sat Sabha and Sikh National Association joined the Hindi movement and voiced their opposition to Urdu before the respective units of Education Commission set up by the British to frame the education policy for India. Realising the gravity of situation the British Government introduced Hindi with Devanagari script in Bihar in the year 1880 despite the protest of Muslims. The aggressiveness of Hindi movement "affirmed that for Hindus Urdu was a pure and simple survival of Muslim tyranny" ((Muslim Politics and Leadership in the South Asian Sub-continent by Yusuf Abbasi, 1981, page 90). Introduction of Hindi in Bihar "quickened the pace of Hindi movement in North West Provinces and later in United Province"(Ibid. page190). "Urdu never indeed took root in the soil of rural India. One reason for this was its snobbish aversion to the dialects of the regions, where Urdu was supposed to have deep roots" (Anwar Azim in his essay entitled 'Urdu a victim of cultural genocide' published in a book entitled Muslims in India edited by Zafar Imam, 1975, page 259).
The followers of Aligarh movement strongly opposed the replacement of Persian script with Nagri in the court of United Province in April 1900. The Muslims took it as challenge to the supremacy of their cultural identity and launched an agitation to oppose Nagari resolution. They converted the Muhammadan Anglo Oriental Defence Association (an outfit of Aligarh Movement) into Urdu Defence Association, which was a starting point to corrode the unity of the national Freedom Movement. Ironically, Deoband Movement, which was opposed to Aligarh movement joined the Urdu Movement by identifying it as threat to Islam. Had Muslim thinkers been honest to develop Urdu in the literary tradition of this land with local script, Indian masses would have perhaps lapped it. Urdu Ghazals printed in Devanagari script are much more on sale than its print in Perso-Arabic script. In ancient India Sanskrit was initially written in Brahmi script but due to its complexity Devanagari script was developed, which was easier to learn. But obsession of Muslim thinkers to carry forward Perso-Arabic legacy of Urdu identified this language with the identity of Muslims as a separate social entity and created major hindrance for it to become a language of common Indians. Such tendency of Muslim thinkers encouraged linguistic separatism and hence Indian masses rejected it.
Formation of Muslim League:
Aligarh movement was the force behind the ideology of political exclusivism in the name of religion, which prompted All India Mohammedan Educational Conference held in Dacca (December 27-30, 1906) to form the All India Muslim League. Since then AIML maintained a visible social and political distance from the Hindus and the Indian National Congress respectively. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a prominent leader of the Congress did not join the AIML till 1913 though, he supported the League movement for separate electorate for Muslims. Within the Congress he however always tried to bargain for one-third reservation for his community. Formation of AIML was a major landmark in the history of modern India. The first formal entry of a centrally organised political party exclusively for Muslims had the following main objectives:
"To promote among the Musssalmans of India, feelings of loyalty to the British Government, and remove any misconception that may arise as to the instruction of Government with regard to any of its measures.
To protect and advance the political rights and interests of Mussalmans of India, and to respectfully represent their needs and aspirations to the Government."
After the formation of Muslim League, the Muslim Indians, in stead of battling against the British remained consistently fighting a war against Indian National Congress a party that they described as of Hindus. Since they had no love for any democratic polity and did not foresee the possibility of restoration of Perso-Arabic hegemony over the Hindu majority with resurgence of Islamic rule in the country, demand for creation of Pakistan became their sole political agenda. They therefore tightened their grip over Indian Muslims who remained constantly under their siege since the establishment of Muslim rule in the country. Formation of Muslim League opened a floodgate for Indian Muslims, who never looked back to their cultural past. Since then various Muslim organisations like Jamaat-e-Ulema-e-Hind, Tbliq Jamaat, and Jamaat-e-Islami accelerated the Muslim separatist movement to keep their community members under siege.
Emergence of Iqbal as Ideological Father of Pakistan.
Allama Iqbal (1873/76-1938) widely known as a romantic and Indian nationalist poet experienced a "mental crisis" after his return from Europe in the first decade of nineteenth century. Being sensitive to the problems of Muslims, he took keen interest in Islamic mystical philosophy but used his intellectual brilliance only to strengthen the grip of All India Muslim League over Muslim masses. His spiritual and political guidance to his community for a separate Muslim state served as bedrock for demand for Pakistan. He is therefore, called 'spiritual father of Pakistan'. "Iqbal combines many contradictory trends in himself; his verses could serve both conservatives and progressives as weapons"( Encyclopaedia of Islam, Brill, Volume III, page 1059).
A product of the movement of Islamic revivalism, which was based on the medieval concept of Muslim solidarity, Iqbal is also known as a poet of Muslim awakening in India. "He stood for going ahead with the Quran and revival of Islamic polity without realising how the simple polity of earlier Islam was incompatible with the complexities of modern civilisation". "He attempted to provide a systematic Islamic base to the socio-political ideas of Indian Muslims" (Politics of Minorities by Moin Shakir, 1980, Ajanta Publication, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi, page142). His romantic ideas meant for reviving the interest of elite Muslim Indians to hypnotise the common Indian Muslims and subordinate them to the former. "Everything was made subordinate to the interest of ruling elite; science, philosophy, democracy, constitution and fundamental rights of equality and liberty were subservient to the exploiting class" (Ibid.).
Like Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, Iqbal also failed to assimilate his liberal thought with the global concept of democracy and could not free himself from the medieval moorings of Islam. He propagated the political solidarity of Muslims on the basis of religion, which fulfilled the political ambition of a section of Muslim elite who got independent power in Pakistan after partition of the country. Indian Muslims who supported the thesis of Iqbal but stayed back in India got nothing but only demoralisation for the betrayal of their leaders. Ironically, Indian Muslims are still proud of Iqbal. He is widely known for politicising the two-nation theory initially propounded by Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan. Muslim League with Iqbal as president adopted a resolution in its Allahabad Conference in 1930, which formed the basis for demand of Pakistan in 1940. Initially Mohammed Ali Jinnah was also an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity but to fulfill his political ambition he took an about turn and led the movement for Muslim separatism, which was launched to negate the tactical move of Mogul Emperor Akbar to rule this country through Islamic 'liberalism'.
After the exit of colonial power, British India was politically divided between 'Hindu India' and Muslim India with Pakistan as a new name to the latter. This division was however, converted into political division only in August 1947, which had the endorsement of over ninety- percent of the Muslims of undivided India. But ironically, of the total thirty percent of Muslim population of British India, about ten percent stayed back in 'Hindu India'.
Common Indian Muslims never understood the complexity of Pakistan movement, which they had blindly supported in the name of religion. Once they understood the reality of partition they were hapless and helpless. They however, did not learn a lesson from the betrayel of their leaders who again misguided them before leaving for Pakistan with a slogan - "Hans Kar Liya Pakistan Lad Kar Lenge Hindustan"(We got Pakistan with smile, we will take Hindustan with fight). A larger majority of the Muslim leaders, who were first Muslims than Indian went to Pakistan but handed over the besieged Indian Muslims who had actively participated in their fight for partition under perpetual siege of Islamic fundamentalists.
Some of the Muslim Indians understood the rising tide of Indian nationalism during freedom movement and took refuge under Nehruvian concept of secularism after Independence. They however, kept patronising the radical Islamists who carried forward the conceptual legacy of Islamic glory in the sub-continent. Emergence of Indian Union Muslim League, a new incarnation of All India Muslim League and multiplication of madrasas in post-colonial India reveal that Muslim Indians did not like to free the common Muslim masses from the siege of the Islamic clerics.
While Pakistan was declared an Islamic State, India accepted democracy and secularism with not only equal right to all its citizens but also certain special rights to Muslims as a minority community. India did not give any constitutional recognition to Hinduism even though its formation was based on religion. The Hindus of Pakistan did not vote for a religion based state but they were forced to migrate to 'Hindu India'. In south Asian countries India is an exception for not giving constitutional recognition to the religion on the basis of which it was reorganised after the end of British rule. The Hindus of this new India however, never raised any assertive voice for constitutional recognition to their religion as the ancient scriptures of this land suggest 'Sarva Dharm Sambhav' (Equal respect to all the religions).
The post-Independence behaviour of Indian Muslims hardly had any change. Their various grievances in the name of Muslim identity are being exploited by all the political parties that treat them as a vote bank only without taking any step to free them from their siege. These demoralised religio-social group that stayed back in India after partition, did not learn any lesson from the betrayal of their leaders. Gradually, the Indian people learnt to ignore the bitter past of partition and accepted the ground reality as such.
In post-colonial Indian polity the Muslims leadership kept their community polarised in favour of Congress for over two decades since Independence. Meanwhile, organisations like All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat were formed to bring the Indian Muslims under common platform but it too failed to resolve their socio-psychological confusion. Organisations like Student Islamic Movement of India emerged to re-infuse the concept of Islamic extremism among the Indian Muslims. Division of Pakistan with the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 for which India under Congress rule fought a decisive war was not palatable either for Muslim Indians
The 'secular' intellectuals belonging to the Muslim community consider themselves as repositories of the heritage of Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi to Allama Iqbal. Instead of identifying the fault lines in the insistence of Muslim clerics on excluvist identity of their community and transforming their opinion , the Muslim 'liberals' are not ready to free their co-religionists from their mental siege. The Muslim 'liberals' are not ready to free their co-religionists from their perpetual mental siege. So long as these 'secular' Muslims do not recognise the civilisational underpinnings of pre-medieval India and link the Indian Muslims to their roots for which no compromise to the spiritual Islam is required - possibility of the freedom of common Muslims from the siege of Islamic fundamentalism is ruled out.
"As long as Muslims felt that they were an important and even decisive element of the ruling group they did not feel that they were a minority a term that implicitly condemns a community to the margins" (M.J.Akbar in his foreword of 'Indian Muslims : Where have they gone wrong' by Rafiq Zakaria, Bhartiya Vudya Bhavan, Mumbai, 2004).There are a number of Muslim intellectuals who write about this bitter truth but it is an irony that they hardly speak this truth assertively when they face Muslim congregations. They often quote the address of Maulam Azad to the demoralised Indian Muslims in front of Jama Masjid after partition but they hardly assert to ensure that the Indian Muslims are freed from their medieval mindset and grip of Muslim Indians. The most unfortunate part of their intellectually cowardice attitude is that they do not intend to write or speak the truth for common Muslims.
If the Muslim scholars are genuine secularists with conviction, they should launch an assertive movement and intellectual jehad to generate collective concern among the Muslim leaders to free the masses from the siege of the Ulema. As a first step they are to free common Muslims from the medieval psyche of Ibrahim Khan's 'Red Pamphlet' - "Ye Mussalman arise awake! Do not read in the same school with Hindus". This is possible only if all the theological seminaries are converted into educational institutions to impart modern and scientific education with a paper preferably optional on theological subject. Kalama, Namaz, Roja, Jakat and Haj, are perhaps the only ingredients of spiritual Islam to maintain Muslim identity. Islam may be a complete way of life during Prophet era but can't it be moderated according to global civilisational changes as has been done in many Islamic countries? Muslim elite and middle class in the community are unfortunately neither ready to unload their medieval mental burden nor feel the need to free the ignorant Muslim masses from the siege of Islamic fundamentalists. Though, this communal conflict is being carried forward by the radical Islamists as a legacy of their religious intolerance, the Muslim scholars often project it as an outcome of divide and rule policy of the British.
In post Independent India, Muslim 'secularists' have been putting blame on Hindu nationalists for the Hindu-Muslim divide. But they never raise any voice against Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, who sowed the seed of two-nation theory and Allama Iqbal who propagated it. Both of them are highly revered among the Indian Muslims. They never condemn Fida Hussain some of whose paintings were the burning example of blasphemy. They are also fond of putting blame on Indian National Congress for sabotaging the efforts of Mahatma Gandi for Hindu Muslim unity. They often refer to Motilal Nehru's report for ignoring the constitutional demand of the Muslims, which compelled a secular leader like Jinnah turning communal. Putting blame on others for own follies is intellectual dishonesty. Zakaria admits that "Indian Muslims became pawns in the hands of political parties" but he has ignored the historical facts that his community members always remained under the siege of the Muslim elite of this country. Is it not a historical fact that the Indians converted to Islam were forced to forget their civilisational roots from the day they changed their faith? Were they not forced to give up their cultural identity before conversion?
Hindus have no inhibition to pay reverence to Dargah of Muslim saints as they believe God in any form but Muslim leaders hardly reciprocate such gesture by joining the religious congregation of Hindus. They talk of reconciliation but are not ready to cross the barricade of Islamic injunctions. They quote Akbar Allahabadi who mocked the Mullah - " why should they travel by train when camel is available" but they never came out aggressively against the Mullah who openly expressed high regards to Osama bin Laden or loudly said that family planning is against Islam. If they do not want the Muslims to defy the Prophet's tradition how can they ask their community members to "discard the outmoded traditions and out of date conventions"?(Rafiq Zakaria in Indian Muslims - Where have they gone wrong, Page XXXIX, Bharati Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, 2004).
Through the ages from Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi to Shah Waliullah and from Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan to Sir Allama Iqbal the Indian Muslims have devolved themselves to maintain a separate identity. The contemporary Muslim thinkers of 'secular' and democratic India have ignored this perpetual devolution of Indian Muslims. M.J.Akbar, a reputed journalist rather found "Indian Muslims evolving through ages " and linked their evolution through the poetry of Khushru, Ghalib, Iqbal and Akbar Allahabadi. Zakaria in his book complemented M.J.Akbar and said that he had " convincingly refuted Sir Vidia Naipaul for his propagation that Indian Muslims have developed no roots in India ". Every Indian would have gladly accepted this compliment of Zakaria had the Indian Muslims been also sensitive to the cultural and religious sentiments of the majority community of this country.
If Muslim 'secularists, do not want to spell out their mind on historical facts and want the Indian Muslims to join the national mainstream without unloading their mental burden of medieval India, they are perhaps also falling in the same line of Muslim Indians who do not want to free their own community members from their siege. How does Mr Zakaria expect the Indian Muslims to respond to his saner advice "to take a realistic stand and sincerely work for collaboration with Hindus" until and unless he intellectually confronts with Muslim Indians for freedom of common Muslims from their medieval psyche? There is no dearth of Muslim intellectuals who in their informal talk criticise the Mullahs but they do not have the courage to confront them. If the Hindu intellectuals raise their voice against the siege of Indian Muslims, they are branded communal.
Without any deep understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of the cultural tradition of Indian society, obsession towards any exclusive identity on the basis of religion is always detrimental to social harmony. The crux of the social tradition of Indian society was a value- oriented concept of dignified co-existence, which was however disturbed after the establishment of Muslim rule in the country. "The notions of pluralism, equality and identity cannot be translated into practice if pursued independently" (Pluralism, Equality and Identity: Comparative Studies by T.K.Oommen, Oxford University Press, 2002, Page 1).
Islam or Christianity never had any identity problem in India before the establishment of Muslim and colonial rule in this country. Identity conflict started only when the Hindus were discriminated on the basis of their religion and they had to suffer due to atrocious behaviour of the alien rulers. Conversion through force or allurement was the main reason behind conflict in religious identity.
Nationality is basically a geo-cultural identity, which the Muslims in India have always disputed. M. Mujeeb, a noted Muslim scholar and expert of the history of Indian Muslims observed that the Muslims claim adherence to Sharia in principle but disregard it in practice. In support of his view he gives example of Muslim landlords, who often create private trust to prevent their daughters from getting share in the landed property of the family. They however, claim themselves to be the upholders of Sharia. (Islamic Law in Modern India edited by Tahir Mahmood, 1972, Page 9). Similarly, Muslim elite hardly makes any sincere effort to encourage the poor and economically backward Muslims towards modern education, which may qualify and induce them to think freely and independently. Madrasa education is producing merchants for selling reserved accommodation in heaven after death but at the cost of poverty in present life. Well off Muslims hardly send their children for study in madrasas.
The monumental wonders erected by Muslim rulers in different parts of India are symbols of Islam. These monuments gradually got the status of national heritage. No 'secular' writer is ready to pen this truth about the misuse of the public exchequer that could have been spent over the economic development of the people. Such lavish expenditure at the whims and fancies of the Muslim rulers reflect their luxurious style of living which may be contrary to the spiritual concept of Islam.
The End of British rule provided opportunities to Indian Muslims to unload their burden of medieval psyche and legacy of Islamic concept of democracy by integrating themselves in Indian society. The Muslim clergies in support of the elite section in their community however, did not free them to do so but rather tightened their grip over them in the name of religion. The political leadership of the country on the other hand allowed the communal divide for vote bank politics that has kept the Indian Muslims under perpetual siege. Had the Indian Muslims been kept out of political Islam and encouraged for adherence only to the fundamentals of spiritual Islam that is Kalama, Namaz, Roza, Jakat and Haz the gap of communal divide might have decreased. In stead of treating them as a political group had they been accepted only as a religious social group the question of their religious identity would not have arisen. In the name of religious identity the Muslim Indians are fighting only for their political identity with a constituency of Muslim voters.
Post-Independence history of India reveals that there was hardly any communal riot on the issue of spiritual Islam. But Muslim Indians in their lust for sharing political power used their community members in the name of religion only for their vested political interest. Gradually, the use of religion became a national strategy of power politics in the country.
The post-Independence behaviour of Indian Muslims hardly had any change. Their grievances in the name of Muslim identity are being exploited by all the political parties that treat them as a vote bank only without taking any step to free them from their siege. With the rising tide of 'Hindutva' the demoralised Muslim community maintained a low profile but formulated the strategy of tactical voting against the BJP in election and succeeded in removing it from power at centre in 2004. Tactical voting of Muslims against the BJP was one of the major reasons for the defeat of the party in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal and Maharashtra. How long this strategy will help the Muslim Indians only time will say but this dangerous trend may be counter productive if the Hindus are also polarised as it happened in the last Gujarat Assembly election. This strategy of Muslim Indians could aggravate the growth of Islamic fundamentalism, which is not in the interest of the country.
Link - http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers12/paper1160.html
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Wrong Way to Fight Jihad - Vijay Kumar
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Vijay Kumar, who is currently running for the U.S. Congress as a Republican candidate for Tennessee 5th Congressional District. The Primary vote comes on August 5 of this year, and the General Election is on November 4. When he ran before, in 2008, he received about 30% of the vote in Republican Primary. His website is kumarforcongress.com. Visit his blog at kumarforcongress.net.
FP: Vijay Kumar, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
You are one of the rare individuals running for office in America who is actually making the issue of Islamic Jihad a significant part of your campaign. Tell us your view of Islamic Jihad and the background you have to make you see it the way you do.
Kumar: I am a native of Hyderabad, India, which is where I first encountered the Muslim culture. We have a substantial number of Muslims there, a higher percentage than most other parts of India, and I began to observe things that troubled me. Later, I traveled a number of Islamic nations, and I lived in Iran from 1976 to 1979, during the Islamic Revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini. I immigrated to the United States in 1979. All my life, I have been interested in political thought. During my travels, I came to realize that Islam is unlike any of the other world religions for a variety of reasons, and they summate to the Islamic ideology behind Jihad.
First, Islam was conceived as a world empire to govern all mankind. It teaches that all the world, and everyone and everything in it, already belongs to Islam–some people just haven’t been made to understand that. Until they have, according to Islam, they are considered “infidels” and inferiors. Put another way, the Islamic view is that all of us in the world are subjects of the Islamic Empire, and those of us who do not acknowledge our subjugation to it must be overcome and brought to submission, through conversion or force. No other religion in the world has such a purpose of world conquest and domination.
Second, Islam does not allow any introspection or self-criticism. It calls for total acceptance, total submission. The very word “Islam” means “submission,” and the word “Muslim” means “one who submits.” The other side of submission, of course, is domination. Islam seeks to dominate every individual and every nation into submission. In that, it shares a key element of slavery, which the civilized world has properly decried and abolished. Such submission is a political act. I am a freeman, and I refuse to submit to Islamic hegemony.
Third, Islam does not have any exit policy for its believers. The act of submission required to become a Muslim is held to be final, irrevocable, and permanent. So criticizing or questioning Islam or its teachings or leaders, or attempting to leave Islam, all are considered severe crimes against Islam, punishable by death.
In contrast, non-Islamic religions allow for dissenting views, introspection, and reasoned debate. In non-Islamic religions, if you so choose, you can leave the faith you were born into without being threatened with physical violence or death. In Islam, both criticism of the faith and apostasy are capital offenses.
All of that is what drives Jihad: Jihad is a permanent war against the unbeliever and his land to bring about his submission. It has been going on for fourteen centuries all over the world, which is why I coined the term “Universal Jihad.” Islam’s Universal Jihad is the single greatest threat to Western civilization and to the entire non-Islamic world in general. It is more dangerous than Nazism and Communism combined.
FP: More dangerous than Nazism and Communism combined? Please explain this perspective.
Kumar: Nazism was in power for 15 years or so. Communism was in power for about 70 years. Today, Germany, Japan, and Russia, our former adversaries, are now our allies. Also, they are liberal democracies.
Nazism, Communism, and Islam are all three totalitarian ideologies. Communism and Nazism, though, lack a system of transcendental metaphysics, which Islam has. Nazism and Communism do not claim to be religions, and there is no threat of hell-fire to hold over its adherents. By contrast, Islam is a totalitarian form of governance that also claims to be a religion, and so has proved to be far more sustainable than any other form of aggressive totalitarianism.
The doctrine and politics of Universal Jihad have been assaulting the world for 1,400 years. It is exactly what launched the Christian Crusades, which were an attempt to save European civilization from the relentless onslaught and wholesale murder of invading Muslim forces.
Under Universal Jihad, non-Muslim civilizations have been annihilated. To mention just a few examples: Turkey was Christian; Iran was Zoroastrian; North Africa and the Middle East were predominantly Christian; Afghanistan and Central Asia were Buddhist; Pakistan was Hindu; Egypt was Coptic, orthodox Christian. All have fallen prey to invasion by Islam.
Today, Universal Jihad has been brought to the West–not just by overt violence, but through every strategy and tactic conceivable. Islam is not just the faith of another immigrant group; it is a complete political and paramilitary ideology. Political Islam is here to Islamize the Western nations, and that includes the United States.
So Universal Jihad is a permanent form of warfare against the infidels, their nation-states, and every non-Islamic form of government in the world. It has been Islam’s mandate for 1,400 years that other cultures must submit to it. Islam is devoted to an eternally-unchanging doctrine: it is obligated to conquer entire world.
No one needs to take my word for it. Syed Abul A’ala Maududi, a Pakistani, was arguably the most influential Muslim theologian and thinker of the 20th Century. He said the following point-blank:
“Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program . . . [T]he objective of Islamic Jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of State rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.”
Any Muslim or apologist who claims otherwise, or who insists that Islam is just “a religion of peace” is not arguing against me: they are arguing against their own most revered leaders and experts on Islam and its true purpose. They are spreading Islamic propaganda that has no other purpose than to lull the infidel into a false sense of friendship and security.
Such propaganda is a primary and vitally important tool of Islam’s psychological warfare. Syed Abul A’ala Maududi also spelled out clearly how many different ways Universal Jihad is to be waged against ”the infidels”:
“In the jihad in the way of Allah, active combat is not always the role on the battlefield, nor can everyone fight in the front line. Just for one single battle preparations have often to be made for decades on end and the plans deeply laid, and while only some thousands fight in the front line there are behind them millions engaged in various tasks which, though small themselves, contribute directly to the supreme effort.”
Unlike any other religion anywhere in the world, Islam’s clear, inarguable overarching purpose is Universal Jihad and global conquest, using any means. It is not waged just through terrorism and violent conflict. That is an extraordinarily naive view. Islam also uses psychological warfare, propaganda, covert operations, infiltration, and demographic saturation.
Universal Jihad exists and no amount liberal “political correctness” is going to wish it away. It is here on the soil of the United States right this minute. Its openly-declared goal is to destroy the United States as a system of government, to tear up our Constitution, and subject us all to Islamic totalitarianism under Sharia law.
FP: Let me ask you this: World War I was won in four years, World War II was won in six years. But the Israel/Palestine and the India/Pakistan conflicts have not resolved after 62 years. Why do you think?
Kumar: It’s simple: Muslims do not want peace, they want conquest. When they enter into an alleged “peace accord,” it is only a ploy to buy time to build their position for ultimate conquest. This is by their own creed: in Islam’s system of “ethics,” it is perfectly acceptable to lie to mere infidels.
In the case of Israel, the West has never been 100% behind Israeli sovereignty. Both the West and Israel have always only wanted to buy truce with the Islamic nations–never peace. It is an endless case of appeasement that puts Neville Chamberlain to shame.
As I have said before, and as history proves conclusively and invariably, Islam does not recognize pluralism, and Islam never wants a lasting peace with any non-Islamic people or states. When Muslims are in a relatively weak position they may offer truce–a temporary agreement–but never lasting peace. Even a cursory study of the treaties made by Muhammad proves at once that every Islamic treaty is merely another tactic toward ultimate conquest and domination. He set the standard for using treaties as a path to conquest.
Since then, Islam has been waging a relentless war for the past 1,400 years against every non-Muslim within their reach. In the last century, technological advances have extended the reach of the Muslim world considerably. Anybody who believes that it’s suddenly going to change–for any reason, through any amount of “diplomacy”–is either grossly uninformed or delusional.
Islamic imperialists have no desire at all for peaceful coexistence with Israel. They want to annihilate the “Zionist Entity.” By the way, during the last 60 years, Israel has absorbed more than a million Sephardic Jews from Arab countries. The Arab nations, on the other hand, refuse to absorb two million Palestinians. It’s a sad irony that two million Palestinians are considered so important while at the same time the suffering inflicted upon 50 million Kurdish people by Muslim nations goes almost unnoticed, unremarked.
Muslims do not recognize the right to existence of either Israel or India. They simply consider them roadblocks to world conquest that need to be removed, no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes. Universal Jihad is infinite, endless war against the infidel. It has been formally, blatantly declared. To the Muslim, Jewish Israel and Hindu India are nothing more than inferior infidel nation-states that must be torn down and brought under Islamic control.
Remember this: Kashmir was a Hindu land continuously for 5,000 years. That’s over twice as long as the time that has passed since the birth of Christ. Islam went there as an imperial force, subjugated the local people, and conquered them, both politically and demographically, after 5,000 years of Hindu peace and civilization. Hence, today the Kashmiri Hindus are refugees in their own land. They have been reduced to a minority.
It is not Kashmir alone. Now Muslims of India wants Mughalstan, the Land of Mugal empire. They want to build an Islamic state from Pakistan to Bangladesh that includes the entirety of north India.
Every year, we are paying Islamic tribute to Pakistan, Egypt, and Palestinians in hopes of maintaining a tenuous truce. We are not really giving them “aid.” It is nothing but Islamic tribute to keep them at bay.
It’s really too simple for anyone to try to complicate it: Islam wants the entire world to submit. India and Israel are simply two obstacles or roadblocks to that goal. If they can get Israel and India to disappear from the face of earth, Islamic Umma–community, or “nation” in the larger sense–would be one unified imperialism from Morocco to Indonesia. Then it would be Europe’s turn to be annihilated.
FP: How do we best win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in your opinion?
Kumar: It can’t be overstated or said too many times that these are merely the current fronts of open conflict in Universal Jihad. In fact, it plays into the purposes of Universal Jihadists for the Western world to be fixated on isolated actions in various geographical locations, and thereby never see the bigger picture.
Universal Jihad is an ideology, a doctrine, that is fixed and unchanging. Waging battles of force and military action alone– especially on Islam’s home turf–and continuing to send troops out as reaction to the latest flare-ups or hot-spots in Islam’s endless war will never succeed. Never.
That’s also why the idea of a “War on Terror” is absurd. Terrorism is nothing more than one of the many technique and tactics used to advance Islam’s political ideology. On this subject of terrorism, groups like the Taliban are a bunch of obedient foot soldiers. They are what Karl Marx called the “lumpen-proletariat.” Allow me to direct your attention to the fact that we never see Islamic Imams–religious leaders–blowing themselves up. If martyrdom is such a high holy act, as Islam’s leaders preach, why aren’t they the ones strapping on the explosives? It’s a curious case of “do as I say, not as I do.”
Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan form the Axis of Universal Jihad. Unless and until we address the leaders of this Axis of Jihad, and the militaristic ideology of world domination that is their chief export, there is no possibility for peace in the future for humanity.
The real power behind Universal Jihad, in all of its manifestations, lies with the Pakistani ISI–the intelligence services of Pakistan–along with the Pakistani military, the Pakistani feudal elite, and the Islamic theological leaders. As a nation-state, Pakistan exists for two reasons: its pathological hatred of India and Hindus, and its parasitic dependence on American aid. Their leaders’ battle cry is always “Islam in danger” when they want to stoke the fires of Jihad, and of course Muslims are commanded by the Quran to go forth immediately when called to fight by their Islamic leaders.
Make no mistake: you can only solve the problem of Afghanistan when you address the problem of Pakistan, because Afghanistan is a client state of Pakistan. And you can only solve the problem of Pakistan when you address the problem of Saudi Arabia, because Pakistan is a client state of Saudi Arabia.
The Pakistanis are being sponsored by the hedonistic rulers of Saudi Arabia. Saudi rulers are materialistic hedonists in their practice, but preach Wahabi Islamic fundamentalist doctrine to the world.
The bottom-line is this: The hedonist Saudi ruling elite form the epicenter for global terrorism, because it is they who fund all mosques and madrasas around the world–and that includes the United States.
They export oil and worldwide Islamic fundamentalist revolution.
That fundamentalist revolution is Universal Jihad, and its entire force comes solely from its ideology, an ideology that was born right in the deserts of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the only real war, and the war that is winnable, is against the ideology that is the doctrine of Universal Jihad.
All three of these nations that make up the Axis of Jihad are ready for internal revolutions. We, the West, are not taking advantage of that situation.
In Iran, for example, a majority of the Iranian population is under 25 years old. They were born after the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979. All of those young men and women are ready to be liberated from the totalitarianism that prevails at the hands of the Ayatollahs. We must appeal to their reason and their own human desire for freedom, liberty, and the right to free will.
Similarly, the Saudi regime is ready to collapse because of its own corrupt system. It is beginning to come under assault from Islamic fundamentalists for its hedonistic life style. Instead of kowtowing to the Saudis, we should be shining a bright light on the rampant hypocrisy.
FP: What do we do then to confront Jihad effectively?
Kumar: To reach a lasting solution to Universal Jihad, and to all the violence and terror and misery it causes throughout the world, the goal of the Western world should be to demilitarize, secularize, and democratize the Axis of Jihad. Anything short of that goal is like putting a band-aid on leprosy. For starters, we should do the following things:
1. Stop all immigration from the Axis of Jihad nations.
2. Stop paying Islamic tribute–so-called “aid”–to Pakistan, Egypt and the Palestinians.
3. Support those moderate, secular, Muslims–there are many—against theological fundamentalists.
4. Build a United Front of Victims of Jihad. That is where Jew and Gentile, Saxon and Slav, Hindu and Buddhist, Norwegian and Nigerian, Catholic and Protestant, Evangelical and Orthodox, have common ground. All can unite to contain the extremist ideology, because all historically have been victims of Universal Jihad.
The United States and Israel have many allies and friends in this cause. All we have to do is look around.
Together, there are many ways we can fight the ideological war and win it with reason, and with appeal to the human quest for freedom. That is our strongest ally.
The first ideological hurdle to overcome is a clear recognition by our own leaders that the only real enemy is Universal Jihad and the three seats of its power: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. It is an existential crisis for all non-Muslim nations, and for all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world. This transcends all ethnic, cultural, religious, and political boundaries. Islamic imperialism draws no distinctions between “infidels.” Until we win this war, we are all targets for takeover.
FP: You mention immigration. Expand on your thoughts on demographics when it comes to Islam.
Kumar: Demographic conquest is the most permanent form of Islamic conquest. Before the expansionism of Islam, by force and infusion, Egypt, North Africa, and the southern coast of the Mediterranean were Christian. There was a Buddhist monastery in Alexandria, Egypt. Turkey was Buddhist and Christian. Persia–now Iran–was Zoroastrian. The Hindu culture covered an area of the world twice as large as it is now.
The fatal flaw of every one of these nations that has fallen before Islamic invasion has been to open its arms to Islam, only to be stabbed in the back.
Islam primarily is a political and military doctrine, dedicated to world conquest, that wears the cloak of religion. The religious cloak is the Trojan Horse it uses to infiltrate the cultures and nations and civilizations it seeks to destroy and replace with Islamic totalitarianism.
Liberals and progressives in those target nation-states become the water-carriers for Islam’s demographic tactics, demanding that immigrant Muslims be granted all the “rights” they need to kill off the host country and take over. The irony is that the liberals who tout the Islamic cause are the first victims when Sharia takes its grip around the throat of a nation. But this appeal to liberals for sympathy and support is a key part of Islam’s ideological war.
Unrestrained legal and illegal immigration is tearing apart the very fabric of Europe and the United States and Canada. To survive, the West must ban immigration from all Muslim nations where Sharia is the law of the land. The only exceptions should be apostates and refugees from Islam. We must pass laws to denaturalize and deport all those advocates of Sharia from the West. Europe is already becoming Eurabia, and in Europe multiculturalism means submitting to Islamic supremacy.
FP: Your perspective on Islam’s dualistic ethics?
Kumar: The Quran, the Islamic holy book, has two sets of ethics. One set of ethics is for believers, the other set of ethics for the Kaffirs–their name for infidels, non-Muslims. The Quran has no good news for the infidel.
In Islam ethics are based upon a simple formula: “good” is whatever advances the cause of Islam, and “evil” is whatever resists the cause of Islam.
In Islam, all Muslims are brothers who should be kind and honest to each other. But Allah hates the infidel; Allah plots against the infidel, so Muslims should, too. Over 60% of the Quran is devoted to the Kaffir, and every mention is negative, demeaning, insulting, or hateful. It teaches war in the name of peace, hate in the name of love.
“Ethics” in Islam is an ideology of double standards, internally warring dichotomies, and endless contradictions. Even its own Imams war among themselves on what is correct “interpretation.” That is why it can be fought with reason and overcome.
FP: Let’s finish up by talking some more about what can be done. Expand on the best way that free peoples who want to remain free can defend themselves against Sharia and Islamic Jihad. What is the wrong way to do it? What are the consequences?
Kumar: The wrong way to do it is for the liberal media and politicians to keep inhaling the opiate of Islamic propaganda about “peace, peace, peace, peace be upon you,” and blowing that toxic smoke all over the world. If we don’t shake them out of their narcoleptic slumber, their own children, or their children’s children–and ours as well–are going to be bowing in submission before the tyranny of Islamic domination and Sharia law on our own soil.
Here’s how the liberals and progressives can help: they should start an organization like the Peace Corps, called Free Americans for Islamic Rehabilitation–F.A.I.R.–that sends volunteers to all Islamic nations to demand tolerance and equal rights in those nations for all other religions, for women, for minorities, and for homosexuals. Now there would be true liberalism in action. We’ll see how far they get putting their money where their mouth is in an Islamic nation.
Meanwhile, those of us who are already awake have got to energetically build a coalition of free nations and people around the globe, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, politics, or religion, and begin an information campaign that is more relentless and eternal than Universal Jihad. That sums up why I am running for Congress. I want to help build that coalition and help raise people’s awareness.
Our leaders have to come to grips with the fact that the seats of power of Universal Jihad are Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan. These are the command centers. They are openly declared enemies of every principle our nation was founded upon. We must treat them as such, or Universal Jihad will continue unabated around the world, flaring up endlessly as we pour more money and innocent blood down the drain.
We can win this war, and we can win it decisively, but we have got to recognize and name the true enemies of mankind and freedom, and take effective action in combating the ideology that drives them. Right now, our own State Department and government agencies are spending enormous amounts of dollars and energy defending the very ideology that wants to wipe them and our whole form of government from the face of the earth!
This is why I say repeatedly, as a central part of my campaign, and why I fully believe that war against Universal Jihadists can be won globally in less than five years, that it can be won for less than one billion dollars, and that can be won without any more loss of American or Western lives.
There are two great forces at work in this war. One is the totalitarian ideology of Islamic theocracy, which permits of no separation of church and state, no true freedom of thought, freedom of speech, or equal rights under the law. The other is our own Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, which proclaim and guarantee human freedom, sovereignty, dignity, and basic inalienable human rights.
These two ideologies are diametrically and irrevocably and irreconcilably opposed. It is a war of ideas. It is a war of philosophies. They are mutually exclusive. One of them is going to win over the other.
Which will it be?
FP: Vijay Kumar, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
Link - http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/26/the-wrong-way-to-stand-against-jihad/
FP: Vijay Kumar, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
You are one of the rare individuals running for office in America who is actually making the issue of Islamic Jihad a significant part of your campaign. Tell us your view of Islamic Jihad and the background you have to make you see it the way you do.
Kumar: I am a native of Hyderabad, India, which is where I first encountered the Muslim culture. We have a substantial number of Muslims there, a higher percentage than most other parts of India, and I began to observe things that troubled me. Later, I traveled a number of Islamic nations, and I lived in Iran from 1976 to 1979, during the Islamic Revolution of Ayatollah Khomeini. I immigrated to the United States in 1979. All my life, I have been interested in political thought. During my travels, I came to realize that Islam is unlike any of the other world religions for a variety of reasons, and they summate to the Islamic ideology behind Jihad.
First, Islam was conceived as a world empire to govern all mankind. It teaches that all the world, and everyone and everything in it, already belongs to Islam–some people just haven’t been made to understand that. Until they have, according to Islam, they are considered “infidels” and inferiors. Put another way, the Islamic view is that all of us in the world are subjects of the Islamic Empire, and those of us who do not acknowledge our subjugation to it must be overcome and brought to submission, through conversion or force. No other religion in the world has such a purpose of world conquest and domination.
Second, Islam does not allow any introspection or self-criticism. It calls for total acceptance, total submission. The very word “Islam” means “submission,” and the word “Muslim” means “one who submits.” The other side of submission, of course, is domination. Islam seeks to dominate every individual and every nation into submission. In that, it shares a key element of slavery, which the civilized world has properly decried and abolished. Such submission is a political act. I am a freeman, and I refuse to submit to Islamic hegemony.
Third, Islam does not have any exit policy for its believers. The act of submission required to become a Muslim is held to be final, irrevocable, and permanent. So criticizing or questioning Islam or its teachings or leaders, or attempting to leave Islam, all are considered severe crimes against Islam, punishable by death.
In contrast, non-Islamic religions allow for dissenting views, introspection, and reasoned debate. In non-Islamic religions, if you so choose, you can leave the faith you were born into without being threatened with physical violence or death. In Islam, both criticism of the faith and apostasy are capital offenses.
All of that is what drives Jihad: Jihad is a permanent war against the unbeliever and his land to bring about his submission. It has been going on for fourteen centuries all over the world, which is why I coined the term “Universal Jihad.” Islam’s Universal Jihad is the single greatest threat to Western civilization and to the entire non-Islamic world in general. It is more dangerous than Nazism and Communism combined.
FP: More dangerous than Nazism and Communism combined? Please explain this perspective.
Kumar: Nazism was in power for 15 years or so. Communism was in power for about 70 years. Today, Germany, Japan, and Russia, our former adversaries, are now our allies. Also, they are liberal democracies.
Nazism, Communism, and Islam are all three totalitarian ideologies. Communism and Nazism, though, lack a system of transcendental metaphysics, which Islam has. Nazism and Communism do not claim to be religions, and there is no threat of hell-fire to hold over its adherents. By contrast, Islam is a totalitarian form of governance that also claims to be a religion, and so has proved to be far more sustainable than any other form of aggressive totalitarianism.
The doctrine and politics of Universal Jihad have been assaulting the world for 1,400 years. It is exactly what launched the Christian Crusades, which were an attempt to save European civilization from the relentless onslaught and wholesale murder of invading Muslim forces.
Under Universal Jihad, non-Muslim civilizations have been annihilated. To mention just a few examples: Turkey was Christian; Iran was Zoroastrian; North Africa and the Middle East were predominantly Christian; Afghanistan and Central Asia were Buddhist; Pakistan was Hindu; Egypt was Coptic, orthodox Christian. All have fallen prey to invasion by Islam.
Today, Universal Jihad has been brought to the West–not just by overt violence, but through every strategy and tactic conceivable. Islam is not just the faith of another immigrant group; it is a complete political and paramilitary ideology. Political Islam is here to Islamize the Western nations, and that includes the United States.
So Universal Jihad is a permanent form of warfare against the infidels, their nation-states, and every non-Islamic form of government in the world. It has been Islam’s mandate for 1,400 years that other cultures must submit to it. Islam is devoted to an eternally-unchanging doctrine: it is obligated to conquer entire world.
No one needs to take my word for it. Syed Abul A’ala Maududi, a Pakistani, was arguably the most influential Muslim theologian and thinker of the 20th Century. He said the following point-blank:
“Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and program of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and program . . . [T]he objective of Islamic Jihad is to eliminate the rule of an un-Islamic system and establish in its stead an Islamic system of State rule. Islam does not intend to confine this revolution to a single State or a few countries; the aim of Islam is to bring about a universal revolution.”
Any Muslim or apologist who claims otherwise, or who insists that Islam is just “a religion of peace” is not arguing against me: they are arguing against their own most revered leaders and experts on Islam and its true purpose. They are spreading Islamic propaganda that has no other purpose than to lull the infidel into a false sense of friendship and security.
Such propaganda is a primary and vitally important tool of Islam’s psychological warfare. Syed Abul A’ala Maududi also spelled out clearly how many different ways Universal Jihad is to be waged against ”the infidels”:
“In the jihad in the way of Allah, active combat is not always the role on the battlefield, nor can everyone fight in the front line. Just for one single battle preparations have often to be made for decades on end and the plans deeply laid, and while only some thousands fight in the front line there are behind them millions engaged in various tasks which, though small themselves, contribute directly to the supreme effort.”
Unlike any other religion anywhere in the world, Islam’s clear, inarguable overarching purpose is Universal Jihad and global conquest, using any means. It is not waged just through terrorism and violent conflict. That is an extraordinarily naive view. Islam also uses psychological warfare, propaganda, covert operations, infiltration, and demographic saturation.
Universal Jihad exists and no amount liberal “political correctness” is going to wish it away. It is here on the soil of the United States right this minute. Its openly-declared goal is to destroy the United States as a system of government, to tear up our Constitution, and subject us all to Islamic totalitarianism under Sharia law.
FP: Let me ask you this: World War I was won in four years, World War II was won in six years. But the Israel/Palestine and the India/Pakistan conflicts have not resolved after 62 years. Why do you think?
Kumar: It’s simple: Muslims do not want peace, they want conquest. When they enter into an alleged “peace accord,” it is only a ploy to buy time to build their position for ultimate conquest. This is by their own creed: in Islam’s system of “ethics,” it is perfectly acceptable to lie to mere infidels.
In the case of Israel, the West has never been 100% behind Israeli sovereignty. Both the West and Israel have always only wanted to buy truce with the Islamic nations–never peace. It is an endless case of appeasement that puts Neville Chamberlain to shame.
As I have said before, and as history proves conclusively and invariably, Islam does not recognize pluralism, and Islam never wants a lasting peace with any non-Islamic people or states. When Muslims are in a relatively weak position they may offer truce–a temporary agreement–but never lasting peace. Even a cursory study of the treaties made by Muhammad proves at once that every Islamic treaty is merely another tactic toward ultimate conquest and domination. He set the standard for using treaties as a path to conquest.
Since then, Islam has been waging a relentless war for the past 1,400 years against every non-Muslim within their reach. In the last century, technological advances have extended the reach of the Muslim world considerably. Anybody who believes that it’s suddenly going to change–for any reason, through any amount of “diplomacy”–is either grossly uninformed or delusional.
Islamic imperialists have no desire at all for peaceful coexistence with Israel. They want to annihilate the “Zionist Entity.” By the way, during the last 60 years, Israel has absorbed more than a million Sephardic Jews from Arab countries. The Arab nations, on the other hand, refuse to absorb two million Palestinians. It’s a sad irony that two million Palestinians are considered so important while at the same time the suffering inflicted upon 50 million Kurdish people by Muslim nations goes almost unnoticed, unremarked.
Muslims do not recognize the right to existence of either Israel or India. They simply consider them roadblocks to world conquest that need to be removed, no matter what it takes, no matter how long it takes. Universal Jihad is infinite, endless war against the infidel. It has been formally, blatantly declared. To the Muslim, Jewish Israel and Hindu India are nothing more than inferior infidel nation-states that must be torn down and brought under Islamic control.
Remember this: Kashmir was a Hindu land continuously for 5,000 years. That’s over twice as long as the time that has passed since the birth of Christ. Islam went there as an imperial force, subjugated the local people, and conquered them, both politically and demographically, after 5,000 years of Hindu peace and civilization. Hence, today the Kashmiri Hindus are refugees in their own land. They have been reduced to a minority.
It is not Kashmir alone. Now Muslims of India wants Mughalstan, the Land of Mugal empire. They want to build an Islamic state from Pakistan to Bangladesh that includes the entirety of north India.
Every year, we are paying Islamic tribute to Pakistan, Egypt, and Palestinians in hopes of maintaining a tenuous truce. We are not really giving them “aid.” It is nothing but Islamic tribute to keep them at bay.
It’s really too simple for anyone to try to complicate it: Islam wants the entire world to submit. India and Israel are simply two obstacles or roadblocks to that goal. If they can get Israel and India to disappear from the face of earth, Islamic Umma–community, or “nation” in the larger sense–would be one unified imperialism from Morocco to Indonesia. Then it would be Europe’s turn to be annihilated.
FP: How do we best win the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in your opinion?
Kumar: It can’t be overstated or said too many times that these are merely the current fronts of open conflict in Universal Jihad. In fact, it plays into the purposes of Universal Jihadists for the Western world to be fixated on isolated actions in various geographical locations, and thereby never see the bigger picture.
Universal Jihad is an ideology, a doctrine, that is fixed and unchanging. Waging battles of force and military action alone– especially on Islam’s home turf–and continuing to send troops out as reaction to the latest flare-ups or hot-spots in Islam’s endless war will never succeed. Never.
That’s also why the idea of a “War on Terror” is absurd. Terrorism is nothing more than one of the many technique and tactics used to advance Islam’s political ideology. On this subject of terrorism, groups like the Taliban are a bunch of obedient foot soldiers. They are what Karl Marx called the “lumpen-proletariat.” Allow me to direct your attention to the fact that we never see Islamic Imams–religious leaders–blowing themselves up. If martyrdom is such a high holy act, as Islam’s leaders preach, why aren’t they the ones strapping on the explosives? It’s a curious case of “do as I say, not as I do.”
Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan form the Axis of Universal Jihad. Unless and until we address the leaders of this Axis of Jihad, and the militaristic ideology of world domination that is their chief export, there is no possibility for peace in the future for humanity.
The real power behind Universal Jihad, in all of its manifestations, lies with the Pakistani ISI–the intelligence services of Pakistan–along with the Pakistani military, the Pakistani feudal elite, and the Islamic theological leaders. As a nation-state, Pakistan exists for two reasons: its pathological hatred of India and Hindus, and its parasitic dependence on American aid. Their leaders’ battle cry is always “Islam in danger” when they want to stoke the fires of Jihad, and of course Muslims are commanded by the Quran to go forth immediately when called to fight by their Islamic leaders.
Make no mistake: you can only solve the problem of Afghanistan when you address the problem of Pakistan, because Afghanistan is a client state of Pakistan. And you can only solve the problem of Pakistan when you address the problem of Saudi Arabia, because Pakistan is a client state of Saudi Arabia.
The Pakistanis are being sponsored by the hedonistic rulers of Saudi Arabia. Saudi rulers are materialistic hedonists in their practice, but preach Wahabi Islamic fundamentalist doctrine to the world.
The bottom-line is this: The hedonist Saudi ruling elite form the epicenter for global terrorism, because it is they who fund all mosques and madrasas around the world–and that includes the United States.
They export oil and worldwide Islamic fundamentalist revolution.
That fundamentalist revolution is Universal Jihad, and its entire force comes solely from its ideology, an ideology that was born right in the deserts of Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the only real war, and the war that is winnable, is against the ideology that is the doctrine of Universal Jihad.
All three of these nations that make up the Axis of Jihad are ready for internal revolutions. We, the West, are not taking advantage of that situation.
In Iran, for example, a majority of the Iranian population is under 25 years old. They were born after the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979. All of those young men and women are ready to be liberated from the totalitarianism that prevails at the hands of the Ayatollahs. We must appeal to their reason and their own human desire for freedom, liberty, and the right to free will.
Similarly, the Saudi regime is ready to collapse because of its own corrupt system. It is beginning to come under assault from Islamic fundamentalists for its hedonistic life style. Instead of kowtowing to the Saudis, we should be shining a bright light on the rampant hypocrisy.
FP: What do we do then to confront Jihad effectively?
Kumar: To reach a lasting solution to Universal Jihad, and to all the violence and terror and misery it causes throughout the world, the goal of the Western world should be to demilitarize, secularize, and democratize the Axis of Jihad. Anything short of that goal is like putting a band-aid on leprosy. For starters, we should do the following things:
1. Stop all immigration from the Axis of Jihad nations.
2. Stop paying Islamic tribute–so-called “aid”–to Pakistan, Egypt and the Palestinians.
3. Support those moderate, secular, Muslims–there are many—against theological fundamentalists.
4. Build a United Front of Victims of Jihad. That is where Jew and Gentile, Saxon and Slav, Hindu and Buddhist, Norwegian and Nigerian, Catholic and Protestant, Evangelical and Orthodox, have common ground. All can unite to contain the extremist ideology, because all historically have been victims of Universal Jihad.
The United States and Israel have many allies and friends in this cause. All we have to do is look around.
Together, there are many ways we can fight the ideological war and win it with reason, and with appeal to the human quest for freedom. That is our strongest ally.
The first ideological hurdle to overcome is a clear recognition by our own leaders that the only real enemy is Universal Jihad and the three seats of its power: Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. It is an existential crisis for all non-Muslim nations, and for all freedom-loving people everywhere in the world. This transcends all ethnic, cultural, religious, and political boundaries. Islamic imperialism draws no distinctions between “infidels.” Until we win this war, we are all targets for takeover.
FP: You mention immigration. Expand on your thoughts on demographics when it comes to Islam.
Kumar: Demographic conquest is the most permanent form of Islamic conquest. Before the expansionism of Islam, by force and infusion, Egypt, North Africa, and the southern coast of the Mediterranean were Christian. There was a Buddhist monastery in Alexandria, Egypt. Turkey was Buddhist and Christian. Persia–now Iran–was Zoroastrian. The Hindu culture covered an area of the world twice as large as it is now.
The fatal flaw of every one of these nations that has fallen before Islamic invasion has been to open its arms to Islam, only to be stabbed in the back.
Islam primarily is a political and military doctrine, dedicated to world conquest, that wears the cloak of religion. The religious cloak is the Trojan Horse it uses to infiltrate the cultures and nations and civilizations it seeks to destroy and replace with Islamic totalitarianism.
Liberals and progressives in those target nation-states become the water-carriers for Islam’s demographic tactics, demanding that immigrant Muslims be granted all the “rights” they need to kill off the host country and take over. The irony is that the liberals who tout the Islamic cause are the first victims when Sharia takes its grip around the throat of a nation. But this appeal to liberals for sympathy and support is a key part of Islam’s ideological war.
Unrestrained legal and illegal immigration is tearing apart the very fabric of Europe and the United States and Canada. To survive, the West must ban immigration from all Muslim nations where Sharia is the law of the land. The only exceptions should be apostates and refugees from Islam. We must pass laws to denaturalize and deport all those advocates of Sharia from the West. Europe is already becoming Eurabia, and in Europe multiculturalism means submitting to Islamic supremacy.
FP: Your perspective on Islam’s dualistic ethics?
Kumar: The Quran, the Islamic holy book, has two sets of ethics. One set of ethics is for believers, the other set of ethics for the Kaffirs–their name for infidels, non-Muslims. The Quran has no good news for the infidel.
In Islam ethics are based upon a simple formula: “good” is whatever advances the cause of Islam, and “evil” is whatever resists the cause of Islam.
In Islam, all Muslims are brothers who should be kind and honest to each other. But Allah hates the infidel; Allah plots against the infidel, so Muslims should, too. Over 60% of the Quran is devoted to the Kaffir, and every mention is negative, demeaning, insulting, or hateful. It teaches war in the name of peace, hate in the name of love.
“Ethics” in Islam is an ideology of double standards, internally warring dichotomies, and endless contradictions. Even its own Imams war among themselves on what is correct “interpretation.” That is why it can be fought with reason and overcome.
FP: Let’s finish up by talking some more about what can be done. Expand on the best way that free peoples who want to remain free can defend themselves against Sharia and Islamic Jihad. What is the wrong way to do it? What are the consequences?
Kumar: The wrong way to do it is for the liberal media and politicians to keep inhaling the opiate of Islamic propaganda about “peace, peace, peace, peace be upon you,” and blowing that toxic smoke all over the world. If we don’t shake them out of their narcoleptic slumber, their own children, or their children’s children–and ours as well–are going to be bowing in submission before the tyranny of Islamic domination and Sharia law on our own soil.
Here’s how the liberals and progressives can help: they should start an organization like the Peace Corps, called Free Americans for Islamic Rehabilitation–F.A.I.R.–that sends volunteers to all Islamic nations to demand tolerance and equal rights in those nations for all other religions, for women, for minorities, and for homosexuals. Now there would be true liberalism in action. We’ll see how far they get putting their money where their mouth is in an Islamic nation.
Meanwhile, those of us who are already awake have got to energetically build a coalition of free nations and people around the globe, regardless of race, creed, ethnicity, politics, or religion, and begin an information campaign that is more relentless and eternal than Universal Jihad. That sums up why I am running for Congress. I want to help build that coalition and help raise people’s awareness.
Our leaders have to come to grips with the fact that the seats of power of Universal Jihad are Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan. These are the command centers. They are openly declared enemies of every principle our nation was founded upon. We must treat them as such, or Universal Jihad will continue unabated around the world, flaring up endlessly as we pour more money and innocent blood down the drain.
We can win this war, and we can win it decisively, but we have got to recognize and name the true enemies of mankind and freedom, and take effective action in combating the ideology that drives them. Right now, our own State Department and government agencies are spending enormous amounts of dollars and energy defending the very ideology that wants to wipe them and our whole form of government from the face of the earth!
This is why I say repeatedly, as a central part of my campaign, and why I fully believe that war against Universal Jihadists can be won globally in less than five years, that it can be won for less than one billion dollars, and that can be won without any more loss of American or Western lives.
There are two great forces at work in this war. One is the totalitarian ideology of Islamic theocracy, which permits of no separation of church and state, no true freedom of thought, freedom of speech, or equal rights under the law. The other is our own Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, which proclaim and guarantee human freedom, sovereignty, dignity, and basic inalienable human rights.
These two ideologies are diametrically and irrevocably and irreconcilably opposed. It is a war of ideas. It is a war of philosophies. They are mutually exclusive. One of them is going to win over the other.
Which will it be?
FP: Vijay Kumar, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
Link - http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/26/the-wrong-way-to-stand-against-jihad/
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Interview with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee
Interview with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee (http://www.indianembassy.org/pic/pm-interview.htm)
"India is now a Weapons State"
In his first Interview since taking over as Prime Minister two months ago, Atal Bihari Vajpayee spoke to India Today's Executive Editor Prabhu Chawla. Excerpts:
Q : Why did you decide to explode the nuclear device now? How would you
justify it?
A : We conducted the series of nuclear tests in keeping with our commitment made
to the people of India during the elections. It is part of the National Agenda for Governance. The decision to carry out these tests was guided by the paramount
importance we attach to national security. I have been advocating the cause of India going nuclear for well over four decades. My party, the BJP and earlier the
Bharatiya Jana Sangh, had been raising this demand consistently and forcefully for long. Now that we are in the Government, people expect us to translate our
long-standing commitment into action. And we have showed them that we mean
business.
Q : Why didn't you wait for the National Security Council to be set up so it
could decide whether the threat perception demanded it or not?
A : The National Security Council has a comprehensive brief. Among other things, it will carry out India's first ever Strategic Defence Review. The conducting of nuclear tests provides necessary information for this important exercise. It is important to distinguish between the two measures.
Q : What was the compulsion to carry out the tests now?
A : Important measures that are guided by national security considerations don't
follow immediate compulsions. Rather, they are guided by long-term imperatives
based on a sound appraisal of regional and global security realities. It is important for us and the world to know that by conducting the latest tests, India has
responded to a stark regional and global reality that has evolved over the past 50 years.
Q : What is this new reality which your Government has discovered now?
A : We live in a world where India is surrounded by nuclear weaponry. No
responsible government can formulate a security policy for the country on abstract principles, disregarding ground realities. Nor can policy be based on anything but the supreme consideration of national interests. The world knows the truth about the progress - or, rather, the lack of it - made by the nuclear powers in the direction of nuclear disarmament. The world community should appreciate the fact that India, the second-most populous country on earth, waited for five decades before taking this step.
Q : Doesn't your Government's decision constitute a radical departure from
the policies of the past five decades?
A : No. My Government's policy is consistent with the nuclear disarmament policy
that successive governments have followed. Like all previous governments, we too
believe that India's national security, as also global security, will be increased in a nuclear weapons-free world. Past governments have taken a number of initiatives in this regard in the United Nations. As an MP and leader of the Opposition, I had supported these initiatives. Since 1968, all governments in India have acknowledged the need for keeping India's nuclear option open in view of the
regional security environment. And successive governments have also been
concerned that the present non-proliferation regime was singularly ineffective in preventing proliferation in one region and exacerbating our security environment.
Q : Why didn't India make effective noises then?
A : These concerns were spelt out during the CTBT negotiations in 1994-96. My
Government's action has to be seen therefore as a minimal response necessary for
addressing the growing concerns. We would have preferred the collective route to
address these concerns. However, initiatives taken by India and other like minded members were rejected by the nuclear weapon states and their allies. Our action was therefore measured and marked by restraint.
Q : What is the worst-case scenario that you had worked out? Do you think
we can withstand the pressure?
A : It is absolutely unwarranted to think in terms of worst-case scenarios. I would like to assure the people of the world, especially in our part of the world, that there is no cause for worry at all, much less any alarm, on account of India's action. All that India has done is conduct five nuclear tests. You place this fact in the context of the hundreds of nuclear tests that have been carried that India's action does not in the least warrant consideration of worst-case scenarios.
Q : What is your reaction to the US insistence that we sign the CTBT?
A : We have made our stand on the CTBT very clear. We have indicated our
readiness to discuss certain provisions of the treaty on a reciprocal basis. But, taken as a whole, the CTBT is discriminatory because it allows nuclear weapons states with advanced technology capabilities to continue their nuclear weapons
programme. And so also is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). There is
no question of India accepting any treaty that is discriminatory in character. No one should have any illusions on this score.
Q : Does it mean that we will go ahead and weaponise the nuclear devices
that we exploded?
A : You would have noted that neither my own statement of May 11 nor the longer
official text released later that day has characterised the nuclear tests as " peaceful nuclear tests". Our intentions were, are, and will always be peaceful. But we do not want to cover our action with a veil of needless ambiguity. India is now a nuclear weapons state. Ours will never be weapons of aggression.
Q : What does this explosion mean for our country?
A : Millions of Indians have viewed this occasion as the beginning of the rise of a strong self- confident India. I fully share this assessment and this dream. India has never considered military might as the ultimate measure of national strength. I would, therefore, say that the greatest meaning of the tests is that they have given India shakti, they have given India strength, they have given India self-confidence.
Q : Will there be more tests?
A : The planned series of tests have been completed.
Q : What is the estimate of the price India has to pay in facing the
international community?
A : Every decisive action has its consequences. But if the action is inherently in the national interest-and I believe our decision to conduct the tests is in supreme national interest-then we have to face the consequences and overcome the
challenge. There is simply no other alternative. No price is high enough when it
comes to securing national interests. We must be ready to face any eventuality.
Q : Are you prepared to bear the political and economic consequences of your
actions?
A : Yes, our action has entailed a price. But we should not worry about it. India has an immense reservoir of resources and inner strength. If we tap this reservoir, the benefit will be a hundred times more than any price that we may have to pay in the short term.
Q : But what about sanctions against India?
A : There is talk and threat of sanctions. Some have already been announced. My
Government will present India's case before the international community-both
bilaterally and in multilateral bodies. I am confident our argument will be appreciated by more and more people. Already, countries like Russia, England and France have shown a commendable sense of realism in their response.
Q : Other powerful nations have come down heavily.......
A : Frankly, the talk of sanctions does not stand the scrutiny of logic or fairness. Besides, it sounds hypocritical. Some of the countries which have talked of
sanctions or have otherwise criticised our action, have done, but they have also built huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Many of them are
enjoying the shade provided by somebody else's nuclear umbrella.
Q : But don't you agree that these sanctions will adversely affect our economic
recovery?
A : Sanctions cannot and will not hurt us. India will not be cowed down by any such threats and punitive steps. India has the sanction of her own past glory and future vision to become strong-in every sense of the term.
Q : Wasn't this meant to divert attention from Internal political problems?
A : This view is not only cynical but is totally at variance with the way a vast
majority of Indians, cutting across the political and social spectrum, have reacted to the event. India has never played politics with national security. An overwhelming majority of Indians, including those who did not vote for my party or its allies, have spontaneously supported India's step of conducting nuclear tests. Almost all the parties have supported it. There is an absolute national consensus on this issue.
Q : Will your party exploit this for political mileage?
A : Indian democracy's greatest strength is that we have always put the nation above politics. It happened during Indira Gandhi's time, when India first conducted the nuclear test in 1974. My own party, then the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, and other
opposition parties were at the time engaged in a major political campaign against Indira Gandhi. But that fact didn't in the least prevent us from supporting the government on the issue of the nuclear test.
Q : Would you say that with the latest test, India's nuclear establishment has
come of age?
A : Yes, you could say that. Our nuclear scientists and engineers have done a
splendid job and, naturally, the entire nation has risen to salute their professional excellence, discipline and patriotism. They have had the benefit of having been led in the past by great men like Homi Bhabha and Vikram Sarabhai. Also, we should not forget that a visionary like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru understood the importance of nuclear science and gave full personal support to the founding of a world-class nuclear establishment. All the prime ministers who followed him have continued to support India's indigenous research and development in the nuclear field. What we are doing today is to build the superstructure on that solid foundation.
"India is now a Weapons State"
In his first Interview since taking over as Prime Minister two months ago, Atal Bihari Vajpayee spoke to India Today's Executive Editor Prabhu Chawla. Excerpts:
Q : Why did you decide to explode the nuclear device now? How would you
justify it?
A : We conducted the series of nuclear tests in keeping with our commitment made
to the people of India during the elections. It is part of the National Agenda for Governance. The decision to carry out these tests was guided by the paramount
importance we attach to national security. I have been advocating the cause of India going nuclear for well over four decades. My party, the BJP and earlier the
Bharatiya Jana Sangh, had been raising this demand consistently and forcefully for long. Now that we are in the Government, people expect us to translate our
long-standing commitment into action. And we have showed them that we mean
business.
Q : Why didn't you wait for the National Security Council to be set up so it
could decide whether the threat perception demanded it or not?
A : The National Security Council has a comprehensive brief. Among other things, it will carry out India's first ever Strategic Defence Review. The conducting of nuclear tests provides necessary information for this important exercise. It is important to distinguish between the two measures.
Q : What was the compulsion to carry out the tests now?
A : Important measures that are guided by national security considerations don't
follow immediate compulsions. Rather, they are guided by long-term imperatives
based on a sound appraisal of regional and global security realities. It is important for us and the world to know that by conducting the latest tests, India has
responded to a stark regional and global reality that has evolved over the past 50 years.
Q : What is this new reality which your Government has discovered now?
A : We live in a world where India is surrounded by nuclear weaponry. No
responsible government can formulate a security policy for the country on abstract principles, disregarding ground realities. Nor can policy be based on anything but the supreme consideration of national interests. The world knows the truth about the progress - or, rather, the lack of it - made by the nuclear powers in the direction of nuclear disarmament. The world community should appreciate the fact that India, the second-most populous country on earth, waited for five decades before taking this step.
Q : Doesn't your Government's decision constitute a radical departure from
the policies of the past five decades?
A : No. My Government's policy is consistent with the nuclear disarmament policy
that successive governments have followed. Like all previous governments, we too
believe that India's national security, as also global security, will be increased in a nuclear weapons-free world. Past governments have taken a number of initiatives in this regard in the United Nations. As an MP and leader of the Opposition, I had supported these initiatives. Since 1968, all governments in India have acknowledged the need for keeping India's nuclear option open in view of the
regional security environment. And successive governments have also been
concerned that the present non-proliferation regime was singularly ineffective in preventing proliferation in one region and exacerbating our security environment.
Q : Why didn't India make effective noises then?
A : These concerns were spelt out during the CTBT negotiations in 1994-96. My
Government's action has to be seen therefore as a minimal response necessary for
addressing the growing concerns. We would have preferred the collective route to
address these concerns. However, initiatives taken by India and other like minded members were rejected by the nuclear weapon states and their allies. Our action was therefore measured and marked by restraint.
Q : What is the worst-case scenario that you had worked out? Do you think
we can withstand the pressure?
A : It is absolutely unwarranted to think in terms of worst-case scenarios. I would like to assure the people of the world, especially in our part of the world, that there is no cause for worry at all, much less any alarm, on account of India's action. All that India has done is conduct five nuclear tests. You place this fact in the context of the hundreds of nuclear tests that have been carried that India's action does not in the least warrant consideration of worst-case scenarios.
Q : What is your reaction to the US insistence that we sign the CTBT?
A : We have made our stand on the CTBT very clear. We have indicated our
readiness to discuss certain provisions of the treaty on a reciprocal basis. But, taken as a whole, the CTBT is discriminatory because it allows nuclear weapons states with advanced technology capabilities to continue their nuclear weapons
programme. And so also is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). There is
no question of India accepting any treaty that is discriminatory in character. No one should have any illusions on this score.
Q : Does it mean that we will go ahead and weaponise the nuclear devices
that we exploded?
A : You would have noted that neither my own statement of May 11 nor the longer
official text released later that day has characterised the nuclear tests as " peaceful nuclear tests". Our intentions were, are, and will always be peaceful. But we do not want to cover our action with a veil of needless ambiguity. India is now a nuclear weapons state. Ours will never be weapons of aggression.
Q : What does this explosion mean for our country?
A : Millions of Indians have viewed this occasion as the beginning of the rise of a strong self- confident India. I fully share this assessment and this dream. India has never considered military might as the ultimate measure of national strength. I would, therefore, say that the greatest meaning of the tests is that they have given India shakti, they have given India strength, they have given India self-confidence.
Q : Will there be more tests?
A : The planned series of tests have been completed.
Q : What is the estimate of the price India has to pay in facing the
international community?
A : Every decisive action has its consequences. But if the action is inherently in the national interest-and I believe our decision to conduct the tests is in supreme national interest-then we have to face the consequences and overcome the
challenge. There is simply no other alternative. No price is high enough when it
comes to securing national interests. We must be ready to face any eventuality.
Q : Are you prepared to bear the political and economic consequences of your
actions?
A : Yes, our action has entailed a price. But we should not worry about it. India has an immense reservoir of resources and inner strength. If we tap this reservoir, the benefit will be a hundred times more than any price that we may have to pay in the short term.
Q : But what about sanctions against India?
A : There is talk and threat of sanctions. Some have already been announced. My
Government will present India's case before the international community-both
bilaterally and in multilateral bodies. I am confident our argument will be appreciated by more and more people. Already, countries like Russia, England and France have shown a commendable sense of realism in their response.
Q : Other powerful nations have come down heavily.......
A : Frankly, the talk of sanctions does not stand the scrutiny of logic or fairness. Besides, it sounds hypocritical. Some of the countries which have talked of
sanctions or have otherwise criticised our action, have done, but they have also built huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Many of them are
enjoying the shade provided by somebody else's nuclear umbrella.
Q : But don't you agree that these sanctions will adversely affect our economic
recovery?
A : Sanctions cannot and will not hurt us. India will not be cowed down by any such threats and punitive steps. India has the sanction of her own past glory and future vision to become strong-in every sense of the term.
Q : Wasn't this meant to divert attention from Internal political problems?
A : This view is not only cynical but is totally at variance with the way a vast
majority of Indians, cutting across the political and social spectrum, have reacted to the event. India has never played politics with national security. An overwhelming majority of Indians, including those who did not vote for my party or its allies, have spontaneously supported India's step of conducting nuclear tests. Almost all the parties have supported it. There is an absolute national consensus on this issue.
Q : Will your party exploit this for political mileage?
A : Indian democracy's greatest strength is that we have always put the nation above politics. It happened during Indira Gandhi's time, when India first conducted the nuclear test in 1974. My own party, then the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, and other
opposition parties were at the time engaged in a major political campaign against Indira Gandhi. But that fact didn't in the least prevent us from supporting the government on the issue of the nuclear test.
Q : Would you say that with the latest test, India's nuclear establishment has
come of age?
A : Yes, you could say that. Our nuclear scientists and engineers have done a
splendid job and, naturally, the entire nation has risen to salute their professional excellence, discipline and patriotism. They have had the benefit of having been led in the past by great men like Homi Bhabha and Vikram Sarabhai. Also, we should not forget that a visionary like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru understood the importance of nuclear science and gave full personal support to the founding of a world-class nuclear establishment. All the prime ministers who followed him have continued to support India's indigenous research and development in the nuclear field. What we are doing today is to build the superstructure on that solid foundation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)